devto-mcp

devto_get_comment

Retrieve a DEV.to comment and its nested replies using the comment ID to display the full thread.

Instructions

Fetch a specific comment thread by comment ID.

Args: comment_id: The ID code of the comment (e.g. '3e3k4').

Returns: The comment content and any sub-replies.

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": {
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "devto_get_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comment_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and 'Returns' clarifies the output, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It is not misleading, but it leaves some behavioral context unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured with clear sections: purpose, args, returns. The key purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value with no redundant content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with a single parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the purpose, the parameter, and the return content. It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but these are not critical for a straightforward fetch, making it adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a definition of comment_id and an example format ('3e3k4'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter name. This adequately informs the agent about the expected input.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a clear verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('specific comment thread by comment ID'), which distinguishes it from the sibling devto_get_comments (plural). The phrase 'specific' and 'by comment ID' makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus devto_get_comments or other siblings. The description only implies single-comment retrieval via 'specific', but it does not mention that plural retrieval or listing should use devto_get_comments. This leaves the agent to infer the distinction.

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

Deploy Server