Skip to main content
Glama
esa MCP Server

esa MCP Server

Official
by esaio

Get team comments

esa_get_team_comments
Read-only

Retrieves a paginated list of comments from a specified esa.io team, so you can review team discussions and locate relevant feedback.

Instructions

Retrieves a list of comments in a team with pagination support.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "esa_get_team_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (starts from 1)
perPageNoNumber of items per page
teamNameNoTeam name (required). Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.13.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only additional behavioral claim is pagination support, which is already implied by the page/perPage parameters. It says nothing about ordering, result size, or whether all team comments or only some subset are returned.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though very short for the amount of ambiguity left unresolved.

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?

Three optional-looking parameters and no output schema mean the description should at least sketch the return shape (a list of comment objects) or ordering. Annotations cover safety, so the description is not grossly inadequate, but it stops short of fully briefing the agent.

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% and each parameter is documented in the schema, including the hint to call esa_get_teams first. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves a list of comments in a team') plus the scope (team-level) and pagination support. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the adjacent esa_get_post_comments or esa_get_comment, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like esa_get_post_comments and esa_get_comment in the same list, the description should say which one to pick for post-scoped versus team-wide comment retrieval, but it leaves that entirely to inference.

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