docmost-community-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_comments

Read-only

Fetch page-level comments from a Docmost wiki page as Markdown, with each comment re-fetched to reflect current edits. Useful for reviewing up-to-date discussion content.

Instructions

List page-level comments. Content is returned as Markdown. Each comment is re-fetched so edits are not stale.

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size, 1-100
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor from meta.nextCursor
`page_id`	Yes	Page UUID or slugId

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those: content comes back as Markdown and each comment is re-fetched so results are not stale. This gives the agent a clearer expectation of output format and freshness without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the added behavior (Markdown output, freshness) each earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool, this is nearly complete: the description covers scope, return format, and freshness, and the schema covers pagination. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on the response envelope would make it fully self-contained, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with page_id, limit, and cursor all described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'List page-level comments', a specific verb and resource that clearly defines a read operation. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling comment tools create_comment, update_comment, and delete_comment, and from other page operations.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The action 'List' and the required page_id imply it should be used to retrieve comments for a page, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are given. There is no competing comment-listing sibling, so ambiguity is low, but the guidance is only implied.

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