Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RepoControl MCP

RepoControl MCP

by johannschiffer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_issue_comments

Retrieve recent comments from a GitHub issue or pull request by specifying repository and issue number; set a limit to control how many comments return.

Instructions

Retrieve recent discussion comments on an issue or pull request.

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>",
      "issue_number": "<issue_number>"
    },
    "name": "get_issue_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesTarget repository in 'owner/repo' format.
limitNoMaximum number of comments to return (default 30).
issue_numberYesIssue number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The word 'recent' hints at a bounded, possibly recency-ordered result, but there is no mention of pagination, ordering, rate limits, or whether PR review comments are included alongside issue comments.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and target scope come first. It is appropriately sized, though it is so terse that it omits useful routing and behavior cues.

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?

For a simple read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves open whether PR review comments are returned, how results are ordered, and how to page beyond the limit, which an agent would need to call it correctly.

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%, with repo, issue_number, and limit each documented in the schema including the default of 30. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (discussion comments) and correctly broadens scope to issues or pull requests. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_pull_requests.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. authentication or repo access), and no exclusions. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name and resource.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools