Retrieve paginated comments for a specific work item to review team discussions and feedback.
[Project Management] List comments for a specific work item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 页码 | |
| perPage | No | 每页条数 | |
| workItemId | Yes | 工作项ID | |
| organizationId | Yes | 企业ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.62Input schema / properties / workItemId / typePrevious value: -"string"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.3.60Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / organizationId / descriptionPrevious value: -"企业ID，可在组织管理后台的基本信息页面获取"New value: +"企业ID"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List comments', but does not mention pagination defaults, sorting, response format, or that it is a read-only operation. The absence of any behavioral details leaves the agent to infer from the schema alone.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, though it could benefit from a bit more context. There is no wasted text.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or what the returned list looks like. For a list operation, this is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect assumptions about the response.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (page, perPage, workItemId, organizationId) with clear Chinese descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('comments for a specific work item'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_change_request_comments. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the 'work item' scope in the context of the project management domain, though the tool name and sibling set make it clear.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, such as when to use list_change_request_comments instead, or when pagination is needed. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.