Retrieve paginated comments for a WEEEK task, including author, markdown, reply parent, and timestamps. Use hasMore and offset to fetch additional pages.
List the comments on a WEEEK task: id, author member id, markdown, reply parent, timestamps. Paged; hasMore says whether to call again with a larger offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds genuine behavioral context the schema cannot express (result fields, pagination and the `hasMore` continuation signal), but it omits permission/auth requirements, behavior on an invalid or empty task id, and how `limit` caps at 50.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource, followed by the paging rule. No filler.
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?
With no output schema, disclosing the returned fields (id, author member id, markdown, reply parent, timestamps) and the pagination contract covers most of what an agent needs. Missing only parameter bounds and failure behavior.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `offset` implicitly via the paging advice and clarifies the shape of the returned comment, but leaves `limit` (default 20, max 50) and the exact meaning of `id` (task id, not comment id) unaddressed.
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 and resource scoped to a task ('List the comments on a WEEEK task') and enumerates the returned fields, making it unmistakable next to siblings like weeek_add_comment, weeek_delete_comment, and weeek_get_task.
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?
Usage context is only implied: you call this to read a task's comments. The description does say how to continue paging ('call again with a larger offset', `hasMore`), which is useful, but it names no alternatives and states no preconditions such as needing a valid task id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.