Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

list_mesh_comments

Read-only

List comments on a specific design, preset, or feature version, and filter to open threads with only_unresolved.

Instructions

List comments on a specific version of an artifact.

Free door, tiered answer — Free: On the designs you keep · Pro: ✓ · Business: ✓ · Enterprise: ✓.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "artifact_type": "<artifact_type>",
      "artifact_version_id": "<artifact_version_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_mesh_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
artifact_typeYesThe kind of artifact: ``design``, ``preset`` or ``feature``; any other word is refused.
only_unresolvedNo``True`` for open threads only. ``False`` (the default) lists every comment. Default: false.
artifact_version_idYesThe id of the version whose comments to list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / artifact_type / description
      Added value: +"The kind of artifact: ``design``, ``preset`` or ``feature``; any other word is refused."
    • addedInput schema / properties / artifact_version_id / description
      Added value: +"The id of the version whose comments to list."
    • changedInput schema / properties / only_unresolved / description
      Previous value: -"Default: false."New value: +"``True`` for open threads only.  ``False`` (the default) lists every comment. Default: false."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds no behavioral detail such as ordering, pagination, whether replies are included, or whether resolved threads appear. The trailing tier sentence ("Free door, tiered answer — Free: On the designs you keep · Pro: ✓ ...") gestures at plan gating but is cryptic and partly contradicts itself about the Free tier, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second is a garbled tier/marketing fragment that does not earn its place and reads ambiguously ("Free door, tiered answer"). For a three-parameter read tool, that noise is a meaningful share of the text.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is low-complexity and read-only with a fully documented schema and no output schema, so minimal description is acceptable. However, an agent still cannot tell what the returned comments look like (threads vs flat comments, resolution state, author fields) or how this differs from get_comment_thread, leaving a real gap for a listing tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the artifact_type enumeration and the only_unresolved default, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description reinforces the version-scoping concept but adds no syntax, id-format, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema states.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ("List comments") scoped to "a specific version of an artifact", so an agent knows the operation and its scope. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_comment_thread, add_mesh_comment, edit_mesh_comment, or resolve_comment_thread, which is the remaining gap.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether to prefer this over get_comment_thread, how it relates to add_mesh_comment/reply_to_comment workflows, or what prerequisites (e.g. read access to the artifact) apply. The only implicitly derived rule is that a version id is needed, which the schema already enforces as required.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools