Retrieve comment wall entries for a RetroAchievements game, achievement, or user, with optional system log inclusion. Supports sorting, limits, offsets, and target IDs.
Comment wall of a game, achievement or user (system log entries hidden unless include_system).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ID, or username for user (default configured) | |
| sort | No | newest | |
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| include_system | No |
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=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and access profile are covered. The description adds useful behavior by noting that system log entries are hidden unless include_system is set, but it does not cover pagination, rate limits, or return shape.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the include_system condition is placed usefully in parentheses. It is concise, though the phrase 'comment wall' is slightly informal for a tool purpose statement.
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 tool with six parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits key parameter semantics and usage context that an agent would need to call it correctly.
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 only 17%, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It clarifies include_system and the target categories, but leaves id, sort, limit, and offset semantics unexplained.
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 clearly identifies the resource as comments for a game, achievement, or user. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_feed, but the target scope makes the purpose understandable.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_feed or get_user_social. Usage is only implied by the resource description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.