Retrieve paginated replies for a single comment, including reply ID, author display name, body, and timestamps. Pass a cursor to fetch the next page.
All replies on one comment, paginated: id, author_display_name, body, created_at, edited_at.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor from a previous result's next_cursor, to fetch the next page. | |
| comment_id | Yes | Comment UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing pagination and enumerating the returned fields, though it omits ordering and any detail on how cursors behave across cycles.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler: scope, pagination, and return fields in a single clause. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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, listing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only ordering of results and the semantics of exhausting the cursor are unaddressed, which are minor gaps for a simple paginated read.
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 100%, with both comment_id and the opaque cursor fully documented in the schema. The word 'paginated' hints at the cursor's role but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (replies) with a precise scope ('on one comment') and enumerates the returned fields, which plainly separates it from the sibling xenmark_list_comments.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent infers it should call this when it already has a comment_id and wants that comment's replies. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance against reaching for xenmark_list_comments instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.