Read comments from a Kaiten card by card ID, preserving full comment text. Supports limit and offset for local pagination of results.
Read card comments. Full comment text is preserved; pagination is applied locally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| card_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| next_offset | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: 'Full comment text is preserved; pagination is applied locally,' which tells the agent that offset/limit are applied client-side rather than pushed to the server, a non-obvious and useful trait.
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 short sentences, zero waste, with the resource stated first and the important pagination caveat second. Nothing extraneous.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and no usage guidance, a reader still cannot confirm what card_id accepts or when/why to paginate; the definition is minimally adequate.
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 0% across all three params, so the description must compensate. It partially does by hinting that pagination is applied locally (clarifying limit/offset behavior), but card_id and the exact semantics of limit/offset defaults and bounds are left undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Read card comments'. This distinguishes it from sibling write tools (kaiten_add_comment, kaiten_update_comment, kaiten_delete_comment) via the explicit read framing. No explicit sibling comparison, but the read/list intent is unambiguous.
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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites as to which card must exist, and no guidance on when offset/limit are useful. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.