# Script Custom Method - Parameter Documentation

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/script-custom-method-parameter-documentation/40734>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Tags:** ignition80, scripting\
**Created:** [November 17, 2020, 3:22pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/script-custom-method-parameter-documentation/40734 "2020-11-17T15:22:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gino.miucci](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/gino.miucci/32/19542_2.png) [@gino.miucci](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/gino.miucci)\
**Post date:** [November 17, 2020, 3:22pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/script-custom-method-parameter-documentation/40734/1 "2020-11-17T15:22:06Z")

</div>

Does anyone know if is possible to document custom method parameters using the script’s comment block?

Ignition automatically inserts the highlighted text (below) into its in-line docs when adding the parameter, but won’t allow me to edit the line to add a parameter comment (similar to the self argument just above it).

Doesn’t seem the comment block is editable directly (I’ve had to add the parameter comment manually below the block).

I also tried to add some comment text into the Parameters entry box but it does not parse.

![MicrosoftTeams-image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/original/3X/b/a/baab53219e1eb97f914c7b58c76a914727205279.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paul-griffith](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/paul-griffith/32/37249_2.png) [@paul-griffith](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/paul-griffith)\
**Post date:** [November 17, 2020, 5:42pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/script-custom-method-parameter-documentation/40734/2 "2020-11-17T17:42:25Z")

</div>

This isn’t currently possible, but it’s an interesting idea…

Script editor refinements are on the short list of improvements; while this wouldn’t land in that initial round, I could see it coming as a further enhancement - maybe a table for the parameters, where you could also define an expected type and a comment.