Skip to main content
Glama
bruhsb
by bruhsb

paperclip_list_comments

Read-only

List comments on an issue with pagination and optional cursor-based incremental fetching to retrieve new comments since a known ID.

Instructions

List comments on an issue, with optional cursor-based incremental fetching.

Args:

  • issueId: string — Issue ID or identifier (example: "PAP-42")

  • after: string (optional) — Comment UUID cursor; returns only comments after this ID (client-side workaround active — server after param returns 500)

  • order: "asc" | "desc" (optional) — Sort order (default: asc)

  • limit: number (optional) — Max comments per page (1–100, default 50)

  • offset: number (optional) — Number of comments to skip (default 0)

  • response_format: 'markdown' | 'json' (optional) — Output format (default: markdown)

Returns: Pagination envelope { items: Comment[], total, count, offset, limit, has_more, next_offset }. When after is used, total reflects the filtered (post-cursor) count.

Examples:

  • Use when: reading new @-mention comments since the last heartbeat using the after cursor

  • Don't use when: you need a single comment by ID — use paperclip_get_comment instead

Error Handling:

  • 401: authentication failed → check PAPERCLIP_API_KEY

  • 404: issue not found → verify ID with paperclip_list_issues

  • 500: server error on the after cursor path → tool automatically applies a client-side workaround

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdYesIssue ID or identifier (e.g. PAP-21)
afterNoComment ID cursor — returns only comments posted after this ID. Note: the server-side `after` param is broken (returns 500); this tool implements a client-side workaround.
orderNoSort order (default: asc)
limitYesMax comments per page (1–100, default 50)
offsetYesNumber of comments to skip (default 0)
response_formatYesOutput format: 'markdown' (default, human-readable) or 'json' (structured)markdown
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description reveals behavioral traits like the client-side workaround for the broken server-side after parameter, error handling for 401, 404, 500, and the behavior of the total field when after is used. This adds significant value.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections: main sentence, arguments, returns, examples, error handling. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without being verbose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (6 parameters, pagination, cursor-based fetching), the description covers purpose, parameters, return envelope, examples, and error scenarios. No output schema exists, but the return format is described adequately. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context: explains the after parameter's workaround, the behavior of total with after, and provides examples of usage. This merits a score above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists comments on an issue, with optional cursor-based incremental fetching. It distinguishes from sibling tools like paperclip_get_comment (single comment retrieval) and paperclip_add_comment (adding comments).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use (reading new @-mention comments using the after cursor) and when-not-to-use (for a single comment by ID, use paperclip_get_comment). This directly guides the agent in tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bruhsb/paperclip-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server