get_issue_commentsRetrieve comments for specified Archicad issues by GUID or exact name, returned oldest first.
Returns the comments of issues, oldest first. Output: {issues: [{guid, name, comments: [{guid, author, text, status: Error|Warning|Info|Unknown, created (ISO 8601 UTC)}]}]}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issues | No | Issues to read (GUIDs or exact names); default: all issues |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by disclosing the exact output structure and the ordering guarantee ('oldest first'), though it omits pagination, limits, and error behavior.
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?
Front-loads the verb and resource, then compactly specifies the output shape in one additional clause. Every part earns its place with no boilerplate.
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?
With no output schema, the description helpfully compensates by describing the return structure and ordering. Combined with full schema coverage and clear annotations, it is almost complete, though it omits the 1000-issue limit and default-all-issues behavior present only in the schema.
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 the input schema already documents the 'issues' parameter in full, including GUID/name fallback and the default of all issues. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 and resource ('Returns the comments of issues') plus a useful ordering detail ('oldest first'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_issues or add_issue_comment, leaving sibling disambiguation to inference.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use conditions, no exclusions, and no references to alternatives. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.