Retrieve threaded comments for a specific Jama item by providing its item ID.
List comments threaded on an item.
Args:
item_id: numeric string Jama item id.
limit: max comments to return (default 50).
Returns:
{"item_id","count","results":[{id,body,created_by,created_date,
modified_date}, ...]}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| item_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It implies read-only operation but does not explicitly state non-destructive nature or any behavioral traits beyond the return format.
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?
Extremely concise: one-line purpose, then two parameters and a return format. Every sentence is relevant, front-loaded, and no extraneous text.
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?
The description provides the return format in text since no output schema exists. Complexity is low. Could mention ordering or pagination, but adequate for this simple tool.
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 0%, but the description adds meaning: item_id as 'numeric string Jama item id' and limit as 'max comments to return (default 50)'. This enriches the schema beyond just types.
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 'List comments threaded on an item,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_jama_item and get_jama_item_attachments.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied but no exclusions or context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yyy188/jama-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server