List comments and nested replies to analyze user feedback and engagement for SEO and content improvements.
List comments incl. nested replies.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_comments"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states it lists comments with nested replies, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no comments exist. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. However, it may be too sparse, missing details that could aid selection. Efficient but borderline under-specified.
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?
The description lacks context about what the comments belong to (e.g., document, page, GA4 property). With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has insufficient context to determine relevance. Incomplete for a tool in a suite with many similar list tools.
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?
The input schema has 0 defined parameters but allows additional properties. The description adds no parameter information. Given 0 parameters, baseline is 4, but the description fails to clarify the role of additional properties, leaving ambiguity. Score reduced to 3.
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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (comments) with a specific detail (including nested replies). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_comment' but does not differentiate from 'list_annotations' or similar list tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include other list operations (e.g., list_annotations, list_tags), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.