Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
传承·交大 MCP

传承·交大 MCP

by Flagwill
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

share_list_comment_replies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves replies to a specific comment in paginated form, with sorting by oldest, newest, or likes and configurable page size.

Instructions

分页读取评论下的回复。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "material_id": "<material_id>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "share_list_comment_replies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo页码，从 1 开始
sortNoold
page_sizeNo每页条数，最多 100
comment_idYes平台对象 ID，正整数
material_idYes平台对象 ID，正整数

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paginated, which is useful but largely duplicated in the schema; it says nothing about return shape, ordering behavior, or auth needs.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is arguably too terse for a five-parameter listing tool, but it is structurally clean.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, reducing the description's burden. However, for a five-parameter paginated listing tool, the description omits any mention of sorting, page-size limits, or how replies relate to the required comment_id and material_id, leaving noticeable gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond 'paginated' and does not explain the sort enum options or the comment/material relationship.

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 states a specific verb and resource: paginated reading of replies under a comment. It is clearly distinct in meaning from the sibling share_list_comments, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as share_list_comments, nor any stated prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'replies under a comment'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools