Skip to main content
Glama

Misar.Blog MCP Server

by blog.misar

List article comments

list_comments
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the comment thread on one article, oldest first, paginated.

Use it to review reader feedback or summarise a discussion. It reads comments only; there is no tool here for posting or moderating a reply.

Reads only. Requires an API key and counts against the plan's request quota. Page through with limit and offset — the default returns the first 20. Returns the comments with their authors and timestamps; an empty list simply means no comments yet, which is not an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoComments per page, 1-100. Defaults to 20.
offsetNoComments to skip before this page. Defaults to 0.
article_idYesUUID of the article, as returned in the `id` field by article tools. Not the slug.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to state read-only behavior. It adds real value by mentioning the API key requirement and request quota usage, and by clarifying that an empty list is not an error. This goes beyond annotation-provided facts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each packed with essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds usage context, limitations, and behavior. No wasted words or repetition of schema fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (comments with authors and timestamps) and handles the edge case of an empty list. Combined with annotations that cover safety, this is complete for a simple read-only list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the sort order ('oldest first') and that pagination uses limit/offset with a default of 20. It also mentions the returned fields (authors, timestamps), which the schema does not. These additions justify a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads the comment thread for a single article, sorted oldest first and paginated. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_reactions (which handles reactions) and list_my_articles (which lists user's own articles). The verb 'read' and the resource 'comment thread' are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('to review reader feedback or summarise a discussion') and what it does not do ('no tool here for posting or moderating a reply'), providing clear exclusions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those actions, so I deduct slightly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Misar.Blog MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools mostly map to clearly distinct resources and actions, with good behavioral separation between create_draft, publish_article, and update_article, and between the two title-generating tools. Some naming choices are still slightly misleading, such as get_series returning the full collection rather than a single series, and generate_cover_image references a non-existent upload_image tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clean lowercase verb_noun pattern, including create_*, get_*, list_*, and add_* names. Notable exceptions are upgrade, a bare verb that also mixes read and mutate behaviors, and get_series, which functions more like a list than a get.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools is in the heavy range for an MCP server, exceeding the ideal 3-15 span. That said, the tools do span legitimate blogging concerns such as articles, reactions, series, newsletters, analytics, and AI assistance, so the count feels broad rather than padded.

Completeness2/5

The surface covers article creation, reading, updating, and publishing, but there is no delete or unpublish for articles/drafts, no way to remove an article from a series, and no update/delete for series. The dangling reference to upload_image in generate_cover_image also suggests a missing tool, and agents will hit dead ends trying to undo publication or remove content.

Resources