Skip to main content
Glama

get_project_comments

Retrieve community comments and discussions for a specific WebSim project to analyze feedback and user interactions.

Instructions

Get comments for a WebSim project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesWebSim project ID
limitNoNumber of comments to return (default: 20)
offsetNoNumber of comments to skip (default: 0)

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_project_comments' tool. It validates input args using ProjectCommentsSchema, calls the API client's getProjectComments method, and returns a formatted JSON response with the comments data.
    handler: async (args) => {
      const { project_id, limit = 20, offset = 0 } = ProjectCommentsSchema.parse(args);
      const result = await apiClient.getProjectComments(project_id, limit, offset);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: JSON.stringify({
            success: true,
            data: result,
            message: `Successfully retrieved ${result.items?.length || 0} comments for project ${project_id}`
          }, null, 2)
        }]
      };
    }
  • Zod schema used for input validation in the get_project_comments tool handler.
    const ProjectCommentsSchema = z.object({
      project_id: z.string().describe('WebSim project ID'),
      limit: z.number().optional().default(20).describe('Number of comments to return'),
      offset: z.number().optional().default(0).describe('Number of comments to skip')
    });
  • server.js:999-1035 (registration)
    Tool registration object in the tools array, including name, description, inputSchema (JSON schema), and handler reference. This defines and registers the 'get_project_comments' tool with the MCP server.
    {
      name: "get_project_comments",
      description: "Get comments for a WebSim project",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          project_id: {
            type: "string",
            description: "WebSim project ID"
          },
          limit: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Number of comments to return (default: 20)",
            default: 20
          },
          offset: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Number of comments to skip (default: 0)",
            default: 0
          }
        },
        required: ["project_id"]
      },
      handler: async (args) => {
        const { project_id, limit = 20, offset = 0 } = ProjectCommentsSchema.parse(args);
        const result = await apiClient.getProjectComments(project_id, limit, offset);
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({
              success: true,
              data: result,
              message: `Successfully retrieved ${result.items?.length || 0} comments for project ${project_id}`
            }, null, 2)
          }]
        };
      }
  • API client helper method that makes the HTTP request to fetch project comments from the WebSim API, used by the tool handler.
    async getProjectComments(projectId, limit = 20, offset = 0) {
      const params = new URLSearchParams({ limit: limit.toString(), offset: offset.toString() });
      return this.makeRequest(`/api/v1/projects/${projectId}/comments?${params}`);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), error conditions, or what format the comments are returned in. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral 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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the returned comments look like, how they're structured, whether they include metadata like timestamps or authors, or any behavioral constraints. For a data retrieval tool without output schema, more context about the return format is needed.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema (project_id, limit with default, offset with default). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but provides no extra semantic value.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for a WebSim project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other comment-related tools like 'get_comment_replies' by specifying it retrieves project comments rather than replies. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools beyond this basic scope.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_comment_replies' and 'get_posts_feed' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for initial comment retrieval versus specialized scenarios. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gigachadtrey/websimm'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server