list_issue_commentsRetrieve comments from a Forgejo or Gitea issue or pull request using repository owner, repo, and issue number to review discussion history.
List comments on an issue or pull request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| index | Yes | Issue number | |
| limit | No | Results per page (default 30, max 100) | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and open-world behavior are covered. The description adds only the scope (issue or PR) and nothing about pagination defaults, sorting, or response shape beyond what the schema provides. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, though it is so brief that it lacks any supporting context.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits anything about pagination behavior or the distinction from related comment-listing tools, which would help full completeness.
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%, so all five parameters (owner, repo, index, page, limit) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Clear verb 'list' and resource 'comments on an issue or pull request', and it explicitly scopes to issue/PR comments, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_issues or add_issue_comment. However, it doesn't name the closest sibling list_pull_request_review_comments, so it's not fully differentiated.
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?
Usage is implied by the statement 'on an issue or pull request', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool naming. An agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to add_issue_comment and distinct from review comment tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.