list_commentsRetrieve review comments left on a pull request branch, newest first, and filter by status such as open, resolved, needs_reverify, or orphaned.
Return the review comments on a branch, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | Yes | Head branch of the pull request the comments are on, such as `feat/login`. Not a pull request number. | |
| statuses | No | Only these states. Omit for all of them. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral trait — results are ordered newest first — but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or permissions, which matters for a listing tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with the resource, scope, and ordering, and zero filler. 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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and ordering adequately. It stops short of describing result size, pagination, or how it relates to 'wait_for_comments', leaving a modest gap.
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 schema itself is strong (the branch description explicitly warns it is not a PR number, and statuses enumerates the filter values). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Return the review comments') plus the scoping unit ('on a branch') and ordering ('newest first'). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'wait_for_comments', so an agent must infer the difference.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative 'wait_for_comments' or 'get_comment_context'. The agent gets no signal about whether to poll this or wait, or whether to use it for a single comment versus a list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.