List the discussion thread attached to a review or an annotation. Returns a flat, chronological list; reconstruct the thread tree from each comment's parent_comment_id (null = top-level). Use this to read replies before joining a discussion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | Yes | The review id or annotation id the comments are attached to | |
| max_results | No | ||
| target_type | Yes |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format (flat, chronological list) and the parent_comment_id structure for reconstructing the thread tree. The verb 'List' and phrase 'read replies' imply a read-only operation, though an explicit safety statement is absent.
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 concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second explains output structure and usage. No redundancy or filler, perfectly front-loaded.
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 3 params and no output schema, the description provides essential information: purpose, output structure, and when to use it. It omits pagination explanation, but max_results is self-evident from the schema constraints.
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 33% with only target_id described. The description confirms the target type (review or annotation) but doesn't explain max_results beyond what the schema's constraints provide. It adds some context but insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.
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 states the tool lists discussion threads attached to a review or annotation. This distinguishes it from sibling write tools like comment_on_review and reply_to_comment, and from list_reviews/list_annotations which list the resources themselves.
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 advises 'Use this to read replies before joining a discussion,' giving a clear use case. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tool names make alternatives inferable.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes. For example, list_my_books and my_books both list authored books, and author_dashboard is a superset; list_orders and my_orders are near-duplicates; check_earnings and payout_balance both report earnings. This creates confusion and risks misselection.
Naming is inconsistent. While many tools use verb_noun (list_annotations, get_book_details), others use my_* (my_books, my_orders), bare nouns (payout_balance), or compound verbs (connect_onboard). The lack of a uniform pattern makes the set feel disjointed.
49 tools is excessive for a server, especially with at least three sets of near-duplicates. The platform is complex, but many tools could be merged (e.g., my_books and list_my_books, list_orders and my_orders). This count will overwhelm agents and increase misselection risk.
The toolset covers the core domain well: discover, purchase, read, comment, review, annotate, publish, monetize, verify, and manage payouts. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete annotation, no delete review, and no single-item getter for annotations/reviews, but these are not critical to the main workflows.