outline_list_commentsRetrieve comments on an Outline document by ID, with pagination via limit and offset. Use to review feedback or discussion threads attached to a specific document.
List comments on a document. Args: documentId (string), limit, offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (1-100) | |
| offset | No | Results to skip, for pagination | |
| documentId | Yes | Document id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no pagination behavior, no note on ordering, no coverage of comment threading or resolution state.
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?
It is short and front-loads the purpose, which is appropriate. The 'Args:' enumeration is largely redundant with a fully documented schema, so one small portion of the text does not earn its place.
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 simple paginated list tool with full annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any statement of what is returned (no output schema exists) and gives no pagination guidance, leaving the agent to infer result handling.
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%, with limit/offset ranges and defaults documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'limit, offset' listing provides no semantics beyond the schema (no unit, ordering, or pagination interaction detail).
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 states a clear verb+resource ('List comments on a document'), which distinguishes it from the write-side sibling outline_create_comment. However, it does not name or contrast with any sibling list tools, so differentiation stops at the verb level.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens with out-of-range values. The trailing 'Args:' clause is a parameter restatement, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.