Retrieve all comments for a Backlog issue using its ID or key, with sorting and pagination controls.
Returns list of comments for an issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of comments to retrieve | |
| maxId | No | Maximum comment ID | |
| minId | No | Minimum comment ID | |
| order | No | Sort order | |
| issueId | No | The numeric ID of the issue (e.g., 12345) | |
| issueKey | No | The key of the issue (e.g., 'PROJ-123') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Input schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Input schema / properties / issueIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The numeric ID of the issue (e.g., 12345)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / issueIdOrKeyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Issue ID or issue key",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "number"
- ]
-}Input schema / properties / issueKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The key of the issue (e.g., 'PROJ-123')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "issueIdOrKey"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context whatsoever – no default sort order, no default/max page size, no statement of what happens when neither issueId nor issueKey is given, and no pagination semantics for minId/maxId.
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?
One efficient sentence with no filler, but its brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined economy – the operation's key constraint (an issue identifier is effectively required) is omitted entirely.
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 6-parameter tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the identifier requirement and paging behavior. Without it an agent could call the tool with no arguments and get an ambiguous result.
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%, so every parameter including the minId/maxId paging pair and the asc/desc enum is already documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing beyond that, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns list of comments for an issue'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling mutation tools add_issue_comment/update_issue_comment and from get_pull_request_comments/get_document_comments by resource. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so no sibling differentiation credit.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the other comment getters, no note that issueId or issueKey must be supplied (both are optional in the schema), and no mention of defaults for count/order. The agent is left to infer the calling contract entirely from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.