get_commentFetch one comment thread with all replies and its status history, including open, resolved, and reopened transitions, by document and comment ID.
Fetch one comment thread in full — every reply plus the status_history (the open -> resolved -> reopened transitions).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment_id | Yes | the comment id (cXXXXXXXXXX) | |
| document_id | Yes | the review id the comments belong to (the document_id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing the return shape: every reply plus status_history transitions. With no output schema, that payload hint is the main source of return-value information, though it doesn't mention ordering, pagination, or behavior when the comment is deleted.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the parenthetical used efficiently to enumerate the returned content. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.
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 full schema coverage and explicit read-only annotations, this is close to complete; the description supplies the return contents that would otherwise be missing without an output schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as error or empty-thread behavior.
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 both parameters are documented in-schema with id formats, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about document_id versus comment_id or their relationship beyond what the schema already states.
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?
"Fetch one comment thread in full" names a specific verb and resource and scopes it to a single thread, which implicitly contrasts with the list_comments sibling. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from the sibling list.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase "one comment thread in full" suggests this is the single-thread read as opposed to a listing. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion (e.g. when to prefer get_feedback or get_status), and no stated prerequisite that both ids must already be known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.