get_card_commentsFetch comments from a specific Trello card by ID to review discussion history, with optional result limit and raw Trello reply output.
Retrieve all comments from a specific Trello card
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return Trello's full reply instead of the trimmed one (default: false) | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of comments to retrieve (default: 100) | |
| cardId | Yes | ID of the card to get comments from |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read operation via 'Retrieve' and says 'all comments', which is actually misleading because the limit parameter defaults to 100 and caps results. It does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication needs, or return format.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its terseness leaves gaps that a longer description might have addressed elsewhere rather than being a structural flaw.
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 tool with 3 fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should clarify that results are capped by the limit parameter and that the operation is read-only; the phrase 'all comments' contradicts the default limit and could mislead an agent.
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 cardId, raw, and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the limit/raw interaction), which is the baseline 3 when 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?
The description states a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('comments from a specific Trello card'), making the operation unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_card_history or add_comment, but the noun 'comments' and read verb make the target obvious without opening the schema.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., needing a card ID), and no mention of related tools such as add_comment or get_card_history. Usage is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.