GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_issue_comments_list

Read-only

Lists comments on a GitFlic issue by project and issue ID, helping you review discussion and feedback tied to a specific issue.

Instructions

List comments on an issue.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_issue_comments_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no mention of pagination behavior, ordering, result volume, or how the slim vs. raw response differs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy – nothing about scope, pagination, or parameters is packed in.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter, two-required listing tool with no output schema, the definition leaves key questions unanswered: how project and id are formatted, whether results are paginated, and how the raw/fields narrowing affects comment data. Annotations cover only the read-only safety profile, so the description's brevity leaves the tool under-described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% – the raw and fields parameters are documented in the schema, but the required project and id parameters have no description anywhere. The phrase "on an issue" weakly implies an issue identifier but says nothing about whether project is a slug, numeric ID, or path, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"List comments on an issue" names a specific verb (list) and resource (issue comments), which distinguishes it adequately from the sibling mutators like gitflic_issue_comments_edit and gitflic_issue_comments_delete. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation or scope statement, so it is clear but not sharp.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over gitflic_issue_comment or gitflic_issue_view, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid project/issue pair. The agent must infer all of this from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server