gitbook_list_commentsList top-level comments posted on a space. GitBook REST: GET /spaces/{spaceId}/comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number. | |
| limit | No | Results per page. | |
| status | No | Filter by comment status. | |
| spaceId | Yes | The space id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and the description adds the useful nuance that only top-level comments are returned. However, it says nothing about pagination semantics, default page size, or whether the status filter has a default, so it clears the lowered annotated bar without adding much.
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, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the endpoint detail. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description is adequate for a read-only list call, but with no output schema it could say more about the shape of returned comments, and the free-form 'status' parameter is left unexplained in both schema and description.
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 description coverage is 100%, so page, limit, status, and spaceId are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema — notably it does not explain what values 'status' accepts, which the schema also leaves as a bare string.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List top-level comments posted on a space') and even scopes it to top-level comments rather than replies. It is unambiguous, though there are no comment-oriented siblings to differentiate against, so the sibling-routing component of a 5 is absent.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites such as needing a valid spaceId or whether replies can be retrieved some other way. The REST endpoint reference is descriptive, not prescriptive.
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.