Retrieve all comments for a task by providing its task ID or human-readable number. Access the full comment history to review feedback and collaboration.
List all comments on a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | No | Task ID (provide this OR taskNumber) | |
| teamId | No | Team ID (auto from session if omitted) | |
| projectId | No | Project ID (auto from session if omitted) | |
| taskNumber | No | Human-readable task number, e.g. 43 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all comments' communicates a read-only operation and scoping, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, size limits, or whether a session is required. The behavior is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single sentence with no filler or repetition. The core behavior is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.
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?
For a simple list operation with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves unstated details such as whether a task identifier is effectively required and whether results are paginated. An agent could likely invoke it, but only with help from the schema.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying the comments belong to 'a task'; it does not clarify the taskId/taskNumber alternative or session defaults, but the schema covers that.
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 the specific action ('List'), resource ('comments'), and scope ('all comments on a task'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like add_comment, and there is no ambiguity about what the tool returns.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: to view all comments for a task. However, it does not state when not to use it, mention alternatives, or provide any exclusions. Usage context is present but only by inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.