list_commentsRetrieve all comments attached to a work item in a Plane project by providing project and work item IDs. Use pagination to control the number of comments returned.
List the comments on a work item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| per_page | No | Items per page (1-100, default 100). | |
| project_id | Yes | Project UUID. | |
| work_item_id | Yes | Work item UUID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / per_page / descriptionAdded value: +"Items per page (1-100, default 100)."Input schema / properties / project_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Project UUID."Input schema / properties / work_item_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Work item UUID."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the operation and does not mention that the call is read-only, how pagination behaves, whether results are ordered, or any permission/rate-limit considerations. 'List' implies non-mutating behavior, but explicit disclosure is absent.
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?
A single, direct sentence with no wasted words. The verb, object, and scope are immediately clear.
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 is minimally viable for a simple list operation with a full output schema and documented parameters. It covers the what but not behavioral or usage nuances; an agent can invoke it correctly but without richer context about ordering, pagination behavior, or read-only guarantees.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic meaning beyond referencing the resource. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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'), resource ('comments'), and scope ('on a work item'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling mutation tools like add_comment, update_comment, and delete_comment, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does.
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 description gives clear context: this is the tool for retrieving comments on a work item. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no alternative listing tool exists among siblings, so the intended usage is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.