get_threadFetch a full code review thread with metadata and the entire comment tree, replies nested under their parent, to read the complete discussion in one view.
Get a whole thread: its metadata plus the full comment tree (replies shown nested under their parent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes | the thread to read. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the key behavior: the result contains metadata plus the entire comment tree with nested replies. As a read operation, no side-effect warnings are necessary, though auth/error behavior is not mentioned.
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?
The description is one focused sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately clarifies the nested-reply behavior. Every word 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 tool with one well-described parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the operation and return shape. It only lacks explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools, but that is not critical to invoking it correctly.
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?
The input schema already describes thread_id as 'the thread to read' with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a precise resource: a whole thread including metadata and the full comment tree. It clearly distinguishes this from list_threads or list_comments_since by emphasizing nested replies under parents.
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 intended use is implied by 'whole thread', but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like list_threads or list_comments_since. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.