@growi/mcp-server

Official

by growilabs

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

getComments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve comments associated with a specific page revision in GROWI, using page ID and optional revision ID.

Instructions

Get comments for a page revision in GROWI

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": {
      "pageId": "<pageId>"
    },
    "name": "getComments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pageId`	Yes	ID of the page to get comments for
`appName`	No	GROWI app name to operate on (optional, uses default if not specified)
`revisionId`	No	ID of the revision to get comments for (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so description adds minimal value beyond 'Get comments for a page revision'. No extra behavioral traits disclosed beyond 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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Perfectly concise.

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?

Simple read tool with annotations covering safety; description is sufficient but could hint at return format (e.g., list of comments). Lacks output schema, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, and description does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters adequately.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'comments', and scope 'for a page revision in GROWI'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getPage which retrieves the page itself, not comments.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include getRevision, getPage, etc., but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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