CNB Remote MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List issue comments

issue_comment_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves paginated comments from a specified repository issue, enabling users to review discussion history and feedback.

Instructions

List comments of an issue.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "issue_comment_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number, starting at 1
`repo`	Yes	Repository path, e.g. "owner/repo" or "group/subgroup/repo"
`number`	Yes	Issue number
`page_size`	No	Items per page (max 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't mention pagination behavior, comment ordering, whether deleted/hidden comments are included, or any rate/auth context.

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 short sentence with zero padding and the resource front-loaded. It is minimally structured but not wasteful; the shortfall is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

This is a simple four-parameter read-only list operation with a fully documented schema and complete annotations, so not much narrative is required. Still, the description says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or what a comment record contains, leaving the agent to discover those on first call.

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 page, page_size, repo, and number all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond those definitions, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List comments of an issue' restates the tool name (issue_comment_list) and title (List issue comments) without adding any distinguishing detail. It conveys the verb and resource but nothing an agent couldn't infer from the name alone, and it doesn't differentiate this tool from the sibling pr_comment_list.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as pr_comment_list for pull-request discussions. The agent must infer the issue-vs-PR distinction entirely from the tool name.

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