commentsFetch a paginated list of fake comments from DummyJSON. Supports limit and skip. Returns comment body, postId, and user info (id, username).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of comments skipped | |
| limit | No | Limit of comments returned | |
| total | No | Total comment count | |
| comments | No | List of comments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 10
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "comments": {
+ "description": "List of comments",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "description": "Comment text",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Comment ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "postId": {
+ "description": "Post ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "user": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "User ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "username": {
+ "description": "Username",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "limit": {
+ "description": "Limit of comments returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "skip": {
+ "description": "Number of comments skipped",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total comment count",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds return structure (comment body, postId, user info) and mentions fake data source, adding value beyond annotations.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
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?
Given annotations and output schema (assumed present), description adequately covers behavior and return fields for a simple paginated list tool.
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?
Schema has 0% coverage; description only names 'limit' and 'skip' without explaining their meaning or format. Minimal improvement over bare schema.
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?
Specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'paginated list of fake comments from DummyJSON'. Unique among siblings (no other comment tool), so no confusion.
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?
Implies usage for fetching comments with pagination, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Slight guidance from mentioning limit/skip.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple tools for data retrieval (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) that differ only in nuance, and the inclusion of both DummyJSON and Pipeworx tools creates confusion about which domain to use for what. Agents will struggle to select the correct tool.
Naming conventions are mixed: Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (verb_noun like 'validate_claim', noun like 'entity_profile', verb like 'forget'), while DummyJSON tools use simple nouns (posts, comments). No consistent pattern across the set.
43 tools is excessive for a server named 'Dummyjson'. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to fake data, making the set feel bloated and unfocused. The count is too large for the apparent scope.
For a fake data API, the set is incomplete: it only provides read operations (fetch, search) with no create, update, or delete capabilities. However, for the Pipeworx portion, the read coverage is extensive, so it's not severely lacking overall.