Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Backlog MCP Server

Backlog MCP Server

by nulab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_pull_request_comments

Read-only

Retrieve comments from a specified pull request to review discussion, feedback, and code review history. Filter by comment ID range and sort order for focused results.

Instructions

Returns list of comments for a pull request

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoNumber of comments to retrieve
maxIdNoMaximum comment ID
minIdNoMinimum comment ID
orderNoSort order
numberYesPull request number
repoIdNoRepository ID
repoNameNoRepository ID
projectIdNoThe numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)
projectKeyNoThe key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.15.1
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / organization
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / organization
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed7 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The numeric ID of the project (e.g., 12345)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / projectIdOrKey
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Project ID or project key",
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "number"
-  ]
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectKey
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The key of the project (e.g., 'PROJECT')",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / repoId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Repository ID",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / repoIdOrName
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Repository ID or name",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / repoName
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Repository ID",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "projectIdOrKey",
-  "repoIdOrName",
-  "number"
-]New value: +[
+  "number"
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination behavior, default ordering, whether all comments are returned, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and usage detail captured above.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a nine-parameter read tool with pagination-style parameters and no output schema, the description says far too little. It never explains how count/minId/maxId affect the result set or whether the list is complete or paged.

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 all nine parameters (count, minId/maxId, order, repoId, projectId, etc.) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the baseline for high coverage.

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 (returns list) and resource (comments for a pull request), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not distinguish itself from get_issue_comments or explain why get_pull_request_comments is preferable, leaving that inference to the agent.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus get_pull_request, add_pull_request_comment, or get_issue_comments. The description states what happens but not the context or prerequisites for calling it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools