Fetch a single comment with its replies + reactions in one round trip. Pass any comment id in the thread (root or reply). Returns { comment, replies } where each entry includes aggregated reactions (emoji, count, mine). Use this when an agent receives a comment.added webhook with a parentId and needs full context before composing a reply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment_id | Yes | Comment id (any node in the thread). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the tool is a read operation ('Fetch'), accepts any comment id in the thread, aggregates reactions with fields (emoji, count, mine), and returns a specific structure {comment, replies}. It also mentions the 'one round trip' efficiency. It does not cover error handling or auth, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences, the first states the action and result, the second gives context and use case. It includes a structured return format in backticks, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential return shape ({comment, replies} with reaction details) and the triggering scenario. It does not describe edge cases or error behavior, but for a single-parameter read tool, the provided information is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter (comment_id) with 'Comment id (any node in the thread).' The description echoes this with 'any comment id in the thread (root or reply)' without adding new semantic information. Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch a single comment with its replies + reactions in one round trip.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_comments (which lists all comments) and reply_to_comment (which adds a reply).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete use case: 'Use this when an agent receives a comment.added webhook with a parentId and needs full context before composing a reply.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.
With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.
The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.