list_commentsRetrieve all discussion comments for a specific content item by ID. Use it to review community feedback or moderate conversations on LightCMS content.
List all discussion comments on a content item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content_id | Yes | required,Content ID to list comments for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v7.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a non-destructive read. The description adds only that comments are 'discussion comments' on a content item, offering no additional behavioral context such as ordering, pagination, or whether it includes replies. Modest value on top of annotations justifies a 3.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though extremely terse for the amount of guidance it could offer.
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, single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits ordering, pagination, and whether threaded replies are included, which an agent would need for correct invocation.
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% and the single content_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('discussion comments') scoped to a content item, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like create_comment and delete_comment. It is clear but lacks any sibling routing language or scope qualifiers.
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 only implied by the name and the 'on a content item' scope. There is no statement of when to use this versus related tools, nor any note on filtering, ordering, or pagination behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.