swsd-mcp

swsd_list_incident_comments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all comments for a SWSD incident, including author details and visibility, with pagination support.

Instructions

List comments on a SWSD incident. Returns id, body, is_private, author_email, author_name, created_at. Use swsd_add_incident_comment to add a new comment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (1-indexed).
`per_page`	No	Results per page (1-100).
`incident_id`	Yes	SWSD incident reference. Accepts either the internal id (>=7 digits, e.g. 180457930) or the human-facing number (<=6 digits, e.g. 60310). The handler auto-detects via digit count.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comments`	Yes
`pagination`	Yes
`incident_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds concrete output contract detail ('Returns id, body, is_private, author_email, author_name, created_at') and distinguishes mutation via add, adding useful behavior beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, return fields are compactly listed, and the sibling pointer is one clear sentence.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only, idempotent list endpoint with an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. Sibling differentiation, return contract, and core resource scope are all covered.

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% and each parameter is well documented, including the nuanced incident_id format and pagination bounds. The description itself adds little about parameters, but the schema carries the full load, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description opens with 'List comments on a SWSD incident', which is a specific verb + resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from incident management and mutation tools. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling add-comment tool, making selection unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides immediate usage context: list comments rather than add them, with sibling alternative named. It lacks a fuller 'when to use' formulation or mention of when not to use update/delete paths, but the clear contrast with add covers the key alternative.

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

Install Server