List comments on a Pipedrive note by note ID, with pagination using limit and cursor to review discussion history.
List comments on a note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of items per page (default 25, max 100) | |
| cursor | No | Opaque token from previous response to fetch the next page | |
| note_id | Yes | The note ID whose comments to list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / properties / cursor / descriptionAdded value: +"Opaque token from previous response to fetch the next page"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of items per page (default 25, max 100)"v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, whether it paginates, what the default page size is, or what happens for an invalid/missing note. One sentence of pure restatement.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is near-minimal, but well-formed rather than 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?
For a simple read-only list endpoint with a fully documented 3-parameter schema, this is minimally adequate. Gaps remain: no output schema and no mention of pagination behavior or empty results, which the description could have covered since annotations are absent.
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 limit, cursor, and note_id are already fully documented in the schema (default 25, max 100, opaque token, note ID). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'comments on a note' — an agent can immediately tell what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling pipedrive_note_comments_get (singular fetch), though the plural 'comments' implies a collection.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus pipedrive_note_comments_get, nor prerequisites like needing a valid note_id or how paging should be driven. The reader must infer everything from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.