list_activity_commentsRetrieve all comments and notes on a specific activity to review coach or athlete feedback.
List comments and notes (e.g. from a coach or the athlete) on one activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Activity id, e.g. "i123456789" (from list_activities or search_activities). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comments | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a minor behavioral detail (comments may come from a coach or athlete) but does not disclose pagination, return format, or any other operational traits. It adds some value but not substantial context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the action and object. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, and the parenthetical example adds context without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, straightforward action), has a complete output schema, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, provides everything an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool. No missing critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% – the 'id' parameter is fully documented with type, example, and origin. The description does not add any additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra semantics are needed since the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('comments and notes on one activity'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_activity or get_activity_streams, as it uniquely targets comments/notes. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. It does not mention that it is the tool for retrieving comments, nor does it exclude any scenarios. An agent must infer from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.