Plane MCP

list_comments

Retrieve all comments for a specific work item. Obtain a complete list of comments associated with an issue.

Instructions

List all comments on a work item.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue_id`	Yes
`project_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'list' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'all comments' specifies the scope. The description adds useful context by indicating the operation is non-destructive and returns all comments associated with the specified work item, which is sufficient for a simple list tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without waste. It earns its place by clearly stating the action and scope.

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 with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks detail on parameters (especially project_id) and any behavioral nuances like sorting, pagination, or authentication. The output schema likely covers return values, so that gap is mitigated, but the parameter gap remains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at issue_id via 'work item' and does not mention project_id at all. The description fails to explain the meaning or optionality of project_id or the format of issue_id, leaving the agent with incomplete parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List all comments on a work item.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('comments') with a clear scope ('on a work item'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_comment and update_comment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The context of use is implied: it lists comments for a work item. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_comment or update_comment, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not mention the required issue_id parameter or how to provide it, though that is implied by 'work item.'

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