get_mod_commentsRetrieve a mod page's Posts tab comments, including threaded replies, sticky posts, and pagination. Works without login.
Read a mod page's Posts tab: threaded comments (id, author, date, text, inline replies), sticky first. 10 threads per page. Works without login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | Game domain name, e.g. "skyrimspecialedition" | |
| page | No | ||
| mod_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: sticky threads are returned first, pagination is fixed at 10 threads per page, and no login is required. This gives an agent actionable expectations about ordering, pagination, and auth.
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?
Three short sentences deliver the core purpose, return contents, ordering, pagination, and auth context with no filler. Key constraints are front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so well: it lists the comment fields, nested replies, ordering, pagination, and auth requirement. For a read-only paginated list tool, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented mod_id and page parameters. It implies mod_id via 'mod page's' and hints at page via '10 threads per page,' but it never directly explains either parameter or the page default. This is a clear gap.
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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('a mod page's Posts tab'), and the data shape (threaded comments with id, author, date, text, inline replies). This clearly distinguishes it from write/comment mutation siblings like post_mod_comment or edit_mod_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 intended use is clear: to read the Posts tab comment threads. It also notes that login is not required, which sets expectations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only framing makes it obvious relative to the mutation siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.