get_commentsFetch comments for a specific post by post ID (e.g., "1"). Returns comment ID, commenter name, email, and body text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | Post ID whose comments to retrieve (1–100). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of comments returned | |
| post_id | Yes | Post ID the comments belong to | |
| comments | Yes | Array of comments on the post |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "comments": {
+ "description": "Array of comments on the post",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "description": "Comment text",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "email": {
+ "description": "Commenter's email address",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Comment ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Commenter's name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "email",
+ "body"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of comments returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "post_id": {
+ "description": "Post ID the comments belong to",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "post_id",
+ "count",
+ "comments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "post_id": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "post_id": 5
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail by listing the exact response fields (comment ID, name, email, body). No contradictions.
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 sentence with no waste, front-loading the core action and resource, followed by a useful example and return field list.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description provides everything needed: scope, example, and return contents. No gap in completeness.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new information about the post_id parameter beyond what the schema already provides, though it reinforces the meaning with an example.
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 the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'comments for a specific post by post ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_post and get_posts. The example and scope are specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description clearly implies the tool is for retrieving comments on a particular post, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all serve natural-language question answering. The JSONPlaceholder get_* tools are distinct but introduce an unrelated domain, making tool selection ambiguous in practice.
All names use lowercase snake_case, which is a consistent style, but there's no uniform verb_noun pattern. Tools mix action-first names (get_posts, remember, resolve_entity) with noun-oriented names (entity_profile, deep_research, pipeworx_trending). The naming is readable but not highly predictable.
35 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. The set includes a full suite of Pipeworx/Polymarket tools plus a separate JSONPlaceholder demo namespace, making the server feel bloated and unfocused. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) could be consolidated.
The server's name and the get_posts/get_post/get_comments/get_users tools suggest a JSONPlaceholder fake API, but CRUD operations are missing: there's no create, update, or delete for posts, comments, or users, and no todos, albums, or photos. The unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools don't address this core domain gap.