Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PingCode MCP

PingCode MCP

by frontendRicky
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List PingCode Work Item Comments

pingcode_list_work_item_comments

Get the list of comments for a specific PingCode defect or requirement using its identifier or work item ID.

Instructions

按编号或工作项 ID 获取 PingCode 缺陷/需求评论列表。

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": "pingcode_list_work_item_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo工作项类型，默认 bug。bug
projectIdNo
identifierNo工作项编号，如 PROJ-505。
workItemIdNoPingCode 工作项内部 ID。
projectIdentifierNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions no side effects, permissions, rate limits, or safety profile. Although it is a read operation, the description does not explicitly confirm this, leaving gaps.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information on return format, pagination, or parameter dependencies (e.g., need for at least one of identifier/workItemId). This leaves significant gaps for 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 60% (3 of 5 parameters described). The description adds meaning for 'identifier' and 'workItemId' by stating 'by number or work item ID', but does not clarify 'kind', 'projectId', or 'projectIdentifier'. It compensates partially but not fully.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'get PingCode bug/requirement comment list' with a specific verb (get) and resource (comment list). It distinguishes from sibling tools that list work items or add comments, indicating a unique function.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context. It simply states the function without directing the agent on appropriate use cases.

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