List a page's comments as Markdown and re-fetch each comment so edits are current. Supports page_id, limit, and cursor pagination.
List page-level comments. Content is returned as Markdown. Each comment is re-fetched so edits are not stale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100 | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from meta.nextCursor | |
| page_id | Yes | Page UUID or slugId |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those: content comes back as Markdown and each comment is re-fetched so results are not stale. This gives the agent a clearer expectation of output format and freshness without contradicting annotations.
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 filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the added behavior (Markdown output, freshness) each earns its place.
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, this is nearly complete: the description covers scope, return format, and freshness, and the schema covers pagination. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on the response envelope would make it fully self-contained, but nothing critical is missing.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, with page_id, limit, and cursor all described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 opens with 'List page-level comments', a specific verb and resource that clearly defines a read operation. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling comment tools create_comment, update_comment, and delete_comment, and from other page operations.
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?
The action 'List' and the required page_id imply it should be used to retrieve comments for a page, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are given. There is no competing comment-listing sibling, so ambiguity is low, but the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.