Retrieve comments on a test execution by supplying its execution ID, enabling quick review of feedback and discussion history for informed decision-making.
Get the comments on a test execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| execution_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It gives no information about read-only guarantees, response format, pagination, permissions, or error cases. The verb 'Get' weakly implies a read operation, but the description is otherwise silent.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity—one required integer parameter and no output schema—the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to understand what to call and what it returns in a general sense. However, it lacks explicit details on the returned comment structure or any behavioral constraints, leaving some context undefined.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented execution_id parameter. The phrase 'on a test execution' does clarify that execution_id identifies the execution whose comments are retrieved. However, it adds no details about the parameter's origin, validity, or format beyond what the parameter name and schema type already suggest.
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 'Get the comments on a test execution' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the action. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like kiwi_add_execution_comment and kiwi_get_execution_history, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kiwi_add_execution_comment or kiwi_get_execution_links. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions or context for selecting it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.