Skip to main content
Glama

Gitea: List issue comments

gitea_list_issue_comments
Read-only

Retrieves all comments from a Gitea issue by site, owner, repo, and issue number, so you can review discussion history without manual browsing.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] List all comments on an issue.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "issue_number": "<issue_number>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_list_issue_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
siteYes
ownerYes
issue_numberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination, comment ordering, whether deleted comments are included, or any auth/site scoping behavior — meaningful gaps for a list endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the key noun phrase front-loaded — no wasted clauses. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained noise that adds no information for the agent.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With four required, entirely undocumented parameters and no output schema, the definition should carry much more weight. As written, an agent knows the intent but not how to correctly supply identifiers such as site, owner, or repo.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four required parameters (site, owner, repo, issue_number). The description only implies the issue_number through the phrase 'on an issue'; it never explains what 'site' means or how owner/repo must be formatted, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — listing comments on an issue — so an agent can immediately tell it is a read operation scoped to a single issue. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling gitea_list_pr_comments beyond the word 'issue', leaving that differentiation to the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer that this is the tool for reading discussion on an issue rather than posting (gitea_create_issue_comment) or reading PR comments (gitea_list_pr_comments).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools