Fetch card comments in chronological order, showing author and reply parent. When the result is capped, retains the most recent comments.
Comments on a card, oldest first, as plain text, with author and reply parent. When capped, the most recent comments are kept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 200, max 5000); capped results say truncated: true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral details: ordering (oldest first), output format (plain text), included fields (author, reply parent), and the cap behavior (most recent comments are kept when truncated). This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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 deliver the core purpose and the edge-case truncation behavior without wasted words. The most relevant information is front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description explains what is returned (comments as plain text with author and reply parent), the ordering, and the truncation behavior. Combined with the schema's limit documentation and the read-only annotations, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.
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 coverage is only 50% because id has no description, but the phrase 'comments on a card' implies id refers to a card. For limit, the schema already documents default/maximum and the truncated flag, and the description adds the consequence that the most recent comments are retained when capped.
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?
The description states the resource ('comments on a card') and key characteristics (oldest first, plain text, author and reply parent). It lacks an explicit verb like 'reads', but the tool name and the phrase make the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as read_card or write_comment.
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 gives clear context for when to use it: whenever comments on a card are needed, with the card identified by id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough that an agent will not confuse it with other read tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.