Podio MCP Server

Get Comments

podio_get_comments

Retrieve comments from a Podio item, sorted oldest first, including author, timestamp, and text. Use limit and offset to page through items with many comments.

Instructions

Retrieves all comments on a Podio item, sorted ascending by creation time. Each comment includes the author, timestamp, and text. Use limit/offset for pagination on items with many comments.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "podio_get_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max comments to return (default: 50)
`offset`	No	Number of comments to skip (default: 0)
`item_id`	Yes	The Podio item ID to get comments for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose sort order (ascending by creation time), returned fields (author, timestamp, text), and pagination behavior, but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it is strictly read-only.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action and result shape are front-loaded and the pagination note follows. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the fields returned and their order. Combined with complete schema coverage on all three parameters, an agent has what it needs, though an explicit read-only statement would round it out.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter (limit, offset, item_id) is already documented with defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of limit/offset adds the pagination intent but no syntax or default detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves all comments on a Podio item') plus ordering, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements (podio_add_comment), but the read-vs-write distinction is unambiguous from the verb.

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 only guidance is 'Use limit/offset for pagination on items with many comments', which is a usage hint rather than a when-to-use/when-not rule. No conditions distinguishing this from podio_get_item or other read tools are given, so selection guidance is only implied.

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