Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Contracko

by com.contracko
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List contract comments

clm_list_contract_comments
Read-onlyIdempotent

List comments on a contract the acting member can access.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Existing contract identifier"New value: +"ID"
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
      Removed value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "comments": {
-      "description": "Comments on the contract",
-      "items": {
-        "additionalProperties": false,
-        "properties": {
-          "avatarUrl": {
-            "anyOf": [
-              {
-                "type": "string"
-              },
-              {
-                "type": "null"
-              }
-            ]
-          },
-          "content": {
-            "description": "Comment body",
-            "minLength": 1,
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "createdAt": {
-            "description": "When the comment was created",
-            "format": "date-time",
-            "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$",
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "id": {
-            "allOf": [
-              {
-                "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
-                "type": "string"
-              },
-              {
-                "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
-                "type": "string"
-              }
-            ],
-            "description": "Comment identifier",
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "isOwnComment": {
-            "description": "Whether the acting user authored this comment",
-            "type": "boolean"
-          },
-          "updatedAt": {
-            "description": "When the comment was last updated",
-            "format": "date-time",
-            "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$",
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "userDisplayName": {
-            "anyOf": [
-              {
-                "type": "string"
-              },
-              {
-                "type": "null"
-              }
-            ]
-          },
-          "userId": {
-            "description": "Author user identifier",
-            "minLength": 1,
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "username": {
-            "anyOf": [
-              {
-                "type": "string"
-              },
-              {
-                "type": "null"
-              }
-            ]
-          }
-        },
-        "required": [
-          "id",
-          "content",
-          "createdAt",
-          "updatedAt",
-          "userId",
-          "userDisplayName",
-          "avatarUrl",
-          "username",
-          "isOwnComment"
-        ],
-        "type": "object"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "comments"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: results are filtered to what the acting member can access. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior, which keeps it at an adequate-but-thin level.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence with the resource and the access constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the noted gaps rather than being padded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers who-can-see-what, which is the main non-obvious behavior. It still omits result shape hints such as ordering or pagination, which an agent may want when the list is long, so it is complete enough to call but not fully informative.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single required parameter, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema's own description is only 'ID', and the tool description only indirectly implies it is a contract identifier via 'on a contract'; it adds no format, validity, or error semantics beyond the structured field.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List comments on a contract') and adds an access scope ('the acting member can access'), which distinguishes it from clm_add_contract_comment by direction of operation. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the list-vs-add distinction is unambiguous from the verb.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative tool. The phrase 'the acting member can access' implies a permission precondition, but an agent gets no instruction about when listing comments is the right call versus fetching the contract or reading documents.

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

All Contracko toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources