get_commentRetrieve a single comment by its number from an exported Reddit or Hacker News thread, including the parent chain and direct replies for context.
Returns one comment by its [cN] number with the comments it replies to (up to the top) and its direct replies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread | Yes | Thread id from list_threads, or words from its title | |
| comment | Yes | Comment number, e.g. "c12" or "12" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this is a non-destructive local read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the response is not just the comment but its ancestor chain 'up to the top' and its direct replies, which tells the agent what context comes back. It omits any note on failure modes when a comment number doesn't exist, keeping it short of a 5.
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 with zero filler, front-loaded with the operation and immediately qualified by the returned scope. Every clause earns 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?
With only two required, fully described parameters and no output schema, the description's job is to convey what the call yields — which it does via the ancestor/replies scope. It is nearly complete, lacking only a hint about behavior when the comment id is invalid.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (thread, comment) are already fully documented, including the accepted comment-number forms in the schema itself. The description's '[cN]' notation restates what the schema already says and adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 one comment by its [cN] number' — and goes on to define the exact scope of what comes back (ancestor chain plus direct replies). That scope detail implicitly separates it from search_comments and read_thread, though neither sibling is named outright.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'by its [cN] number' faintly implies you already need the identifier (so search_comments would come first), but that routing is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.