Retrieve comments from a Dooray wiki page, newest first, with pagination and details including creator, body, and timestamps.
Get comments on a wiki page. Returns newest first. Each comment has: id, page, createdAt, modifiedAt, creator, body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (0-based, default: 0) | |
| size | No | Page size (default: 20, max: 100) | |
| pageId | Yes | Wiki page ID (required) | |
| wikiId | Yes | Wiki ID (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the return ordering (newest first) and the fields included in each comment.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted text. The purpose and ordering are front-loaded, followed by the return shape.
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?
With annotations covering safety and schema covering all parameters, the description supplies the missing return-field context. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but the schema already documents page and size controls.
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 page, size, pageId, and wikiId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, so baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb and resource: getting comments on a wiki page. The plural "comments" signals a list operation and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling single-comment tool, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against alternatives.
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?
It states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get-wiki-page-comment or other comment-list tools. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.