Retrieve a product feedback thread's full conversation—original request and every reply with author—so you can read prior discussion before answering and avoid repeating comments.
The whole conversation on a thread: the original request, then every reply with its author. Read it before answering so you are not repeating something already said.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (original request first, then all replies with authors), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether resolved/closed threads are included.
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 the payload description front-loaded and the read-before-replying guidance placed after it. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains what comes back, which compensates for the missing output schema. However, the sole parameter is completely undocumented and no error or edge-case behavior is covered.
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 0% and the description never mentions thread_id. An agent gets no guidance on the identifier's format, where it is obtained, or what happens with an invalid or missing thread.
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 resource (the whole conversation on a thread) and delineates its scope: the original request plus every reply with author attribution. This implicitly separates it from siblings like get_comment and list_comments, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
"Read it before answering so you are not repeating something already said" gives a concrete situation for invoking the tool with a rationale. There is no statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for partial reads, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.