Fetch a Haraj post's discussion replies by post_id, with optional page and oldest_first ordering.
Comment list for a post. Required: post_id. Optional: page, oldest_first (default true).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Zero-based page index. | |
| post_id | Yes | Haraj post id. | |
| oldest_first | No | Return oldest comments first (false = newest first). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / oldest_first / descriptionAdded value: +"Return oldest comments first (false = newest first)."Input schema / properties / page / descriptionAdded value: +"Zero-based page index."Input schema / properties / post_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Haraj post id."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination limits, no ordering caveats, no indication of how many comments are returned per page.
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?
Three short fragments, fully front-loaded, with zero filler. It is terse to the point of omitting useful context, but every clause carries 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?
For a simple read-only list tool with a complete input schema and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. However, return shape and pagination behavior across pages are left entirely unexplained, which an agent needs to page correctly.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates required/optional status and the oldest_first default, which the schema already documents, adding no new semantic meaning such as the page size or ordering interaction.
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 resource and action: a comment list scoped to a post. An agent can tell it retrieves comments rather than posts or users, though it does not name a sibling tool or contrast with get_post_details which might also surface comment data.
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 only implies usage through the required post_id mention. It offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. auth or post visibility), and no pointer to an alternative if a different comment view is wanted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.