retrieve_ticketcommentsRetrieve a single comment on a ticket submission by id. Each comment carries app_url, an INTERNAL deep link to the ticket's task drawer — do not hand it to the customer; use the ticket's public_url (from retrieve_ticketsubmissions) for a customer-facing link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/safe behavior. The description adds crucial non-obvious context: the returned app_url is an internal deep link that must not be exposed to customers, and the customer-facing counterpart comes from another tool. This goes beyond annotation basics and provides meaningful operational guidance.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a high-value safety note. No wasted words; every phrase serves a function. The structure is clean and scannable.
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 retrieve operation with good annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral quirk (internal vs. public link). It does not explain parameter relationships or error scenarios, but those are partly addressed by the schema. The presence of an important output-usage caveat elevates it above minimal adequacy.
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 description only says 'by id' without clarifying which parameter (submission_id vs. pk) or how they relate. With schema description coverage at 0% (the tool description adds no parameter detail), it fails to compensate for the nested structure and dual-parameter requirement. The schema does provide descriptions, but the tool description itself adds little semantic value for parameters.
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 identifies the action ('Retrieve') and the specific resource ('a single comment on a ticket submission'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ticketcomments or retrieve_ticketsubmissions. The verb+resource combination is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the phrase 'single comment' implies a contrast with listing tools. It provides a strong usage guideline for the returned data (not sharing app_url with customers), which is a form of context, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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 are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.