commentsList Lemmy comments under a post or thread. Returns author, body, score, parent, posted date. Use to read discussion threads on federated Reddit-alternative communities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| post_id | No | ||
| instance | No | ||
| community | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| parent_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comments | No | List of comments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 20,
+ "post_id": 12345,
+ "sort": "Hot"
+ },
+ {
+ "max_depth": 3,
+ "parent_id": 98765,
+ "post_id": 12345
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from Lemmy API /comment/list endpoint",
+ "properties": {
+ "comments": {
+ "description": "List of comments",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "comment": {
+ "description": "Comment object with id, content, post_id, parent_id",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "community": {
+ "description": "Community object",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "counts": {
+ "description": "Comment statistics (upvotes, downvotes)",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "creator": {
+ "description": "Comment creator user object",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying return fields and scope, but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, or rate limits. It adds moderate context 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?
Two sentences pack purpose, scope, return fields, and use case with zero filler. The description is front-loaded with the action verb and completely avoids redundancy.
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?
With 8 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves too much unspecified. The output schema exists but doesn't help with invocation, and no guidance is given on how to combine parameters to achieve a particular thread or depth. The tool is under-described for its complexity.
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 coverage is 0% and there are 8 undocumented parameters. The description only hints at 'post or thread' but never explains parameters like post_id, parent_id, instance, community, max_depth, sort, limit, or page. The agent cannot infer parameter meaning or required combinations from this 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Lemmy comments under a post or thread'), states returned fields, and names the use case. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like 'posts' or 'post' by focusing on comments/discussion threads.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use to read discussion threads', giving clear context. It doesn't list exclusions or name alternatives, but the sibling list provides enough contrast that an agent can infer when to choose this tool.
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: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk all analyze prediction markets. The Lemmy tools are distinct from the Pipeworx tools, but within each cluster an agent could easily select the wrong tool despite lengthy descriptions.
Naming conventions are mixed: single nouns (post, community, site), verb_noun patterns (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), and ad-hoc names (ask_pipeworx, forget, recall). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-only pattern across the set, making it hard to predict tool names.
38 tools is excessive for a server named 'Lemmy' where only 7 tools (comments, communities, community, post, posts, search, site) actually relate to Lemmy. The vast majority of tools belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch and making the server feel bloated and unfocused.
For the Lemmy domain, the tools cover read-only browsing (list posts, view post, list communities, fetch community, comments, search, site metadata) but completely lack write operations like posting, commenting, voting, or moderation. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but do not compensate for the primary domain's gaps since the server is ostensibly about Lemmy.