get_v1_community_post_commentsCommunity Post Comments Group: Community Post. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | You can get it from the Community Post Details endpoint. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are completely absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, what the response contains, or any side effects. The billing mention is irrelevant to behavior. This is a critical gap for a tool that likely makes an API call.
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 extremely short but wastes space on a grouping label and billing information rather than stating the tool's functionality. It is under-specified rather than concise; it lacks a clear subject-verb-object structure and front-loads irrelevant details.
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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description fails to mention return values, pagination behavior, or how the tool relates to the community post. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate but does not. The absence of any usage context makes it incomplete.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'cursor', with a description pointing to the Community Post Details endpoint. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but per the rubric, a high schema coverage baseline of 3 applies. No extra meaning is contributed by the description.
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 'Community Post Comments Group: Community Post. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves comments for a community post. It reads as a category label or billing note, relying entirely on the tool name to convey purpose. It is ambiguous and does not distinguish from sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_v1_video_comments or get_v1_community_post_details. The only additional information is a billing credit note, which is not usage guidance. The description fails to mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.