Skip to main content
Glama

List comments

list_comments
Read-onlyIdempotent

Comentários da comunidade sobre um canal. Com credencial na chamada, cada comentário seu vem com mine: true — é assim que a interface sabe o que dá para apagar.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID do canal no catálogo.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"ID do canal no iptv-org."New value: +"ID do canal no catálogo."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"ID do canal no iptv-org."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's real value is the added detail that credentialed calls tag the caller's own comments with `mine: true` and that this flag drives deletability. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields; pagination/return shape is still unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, behavioral detail second, no filler. Appropriately sized for a trivial list tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only list operation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema required, the description supplies purpose plus the `mine` flag semantics. Only pagination/ordering behavior is absent, which is a minor gap here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including 'ID do canal no catálogo'), and the description adds nothing about it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource and its scope — community comments attached to a specific channel — which separates it from post_comment and delete_comment. It omits an explicit verb like 'list' (that lives only in the name/title), so it is clear but not maximally self-contained.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It never states when to choose this over siblings such as get_channel or delete_comment, nor any preconditions. The only contextual note ('com credencial na chamada') describes authentication behavior, not when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources