Retrieve a timeline comment by ID to access its action items and resolve metadata for podcast DAW review.
Fetch one timeline comment by id (full action_items and resolve metadata).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment_id | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "comment_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "comment_id"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes full action_items and resolve metadata, beyond a bare fetch, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for a missing id, or whether project_path scoping affects results.
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 the parenthetical payload detail placed last; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, and the description does note the notable payload fields. However, for a two-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the unexplained project_path and absent error/routing guidance leave real gaps.
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 0% for 2 parameters. 'by id' gives the meaning of comment_id, but project_path is entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving half the interface undocumented.
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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one timeline comment by id'), and the singular-plus-id framing implicitly separates it from the sibling list_comments_tool. It is clear and actionable, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'by id' – the agent infers this is the lookup path when a comment_id is known. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_comments_tool or what happens if the id is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.