Excaliself

List comments

list_comments

Read-only

Retrieve comment threads pinned to a drawing, oldest first, including each comment and whether its element is deleted; optionally include resolved threads.

Instructions

Lists the comment threads pinned to a drawing, oldest first, with their comments. Each thread is pinned to an element (with its label, or deleted: true once the element is gone) or to a canvas point.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "list_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	A drawing id from list_drawings or search_drawings.
`includeResolved`	No	Also list resolved threads. Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.11.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: ordering (oldest first), nested comments returned inside each thread, and the 'deleted: true' marker for threads whose anchor element no longer exists. However, it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or what happens with very large comment sets, which is a notable gap for a list tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the core operation plus ordering are front-loaded before the detail about pinning. The second sentence is dense but every clause (element label, deleted marker, canvas point) conveys distinct structural information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does reasonably well: threads, nested comments, ordering, and both anchor types with the deleted-element flag. The remaining gap is scale-related — nothing about pagination, truncation, or expected volume for a drawing with many threads.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id sourced from list_drawings/search_drawings, and includeResolved defaulting to false) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning on top of that — notably it never mentions the resolved-thread filter, leaving the schema to do all the work. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the comment threads pinned to a drawing') plus ordering ('oldest first') and payload ('with their comments'), which clearly separates it from write-side siblings like add_comment, reply_to_comment and resolve_comment. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for a drawing's comment threads. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no note that resolved threads are excluded unless requested (that only appears in the schema), and no guidance on choosing between this and sibling read tools such as read_drawing.

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