DutyHub MCP Server

list_comments

Retrieve all comments associated with a specific task by providing its UUID.

Instructions

Bir task'ın (varlığın) yorumlarını listeler.

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity_id`	Yes	Task UUID
`entity_type`	No	Varsayılan: task

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description discloses only the basic function of listing comments. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, or what happens on invalid input, offering minimal transparency beyond the action itself.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no superfluous words. While efficient, it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness, such as mentioning the return format.

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?

For a simple list tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or what comment data is returned. Without an output schema, more contextual details would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., entity_type default). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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 clearly states the tool lists comments for a task or entity, using the verb 'list' and identifying the resource. While in Turkish, it is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_comment and list_tasks, though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_comment or list_tasks. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without situational advice.

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

Deploy Server