Skip to main content
Glama

Search messages

search_messages
Read-only

Searches the text of the user's messages in all their chats, or in one, newest first. Each result names its chat and network.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMessages to return, newest first.
queryYesThe words to find.
chat_idNoOnly this chat's messages (chat_…).
networkNoOnly this network's chats, such as whatsapp. Email is left out unless this is email.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds ordering ('newest first') and result shape ('each result names its chat and network'), which is useful, but it does not clarify matching semantics (substring vs whole words), whether attachments/media text is searched, or pagination behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with zero filler; scope is front-loaded and result behavior follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only search with full schema coverage, no output schema and clear annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only match semantics and result-size behavior are left implicit.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so per-parameter documentation already exists for query, limit, chat_id and network. The description reinforces chat scoping and ordering but adds no meaning beyond the schema, and never mentions the network filter or its email caveat.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Searches the text of the user's messages') plus scope ('all their chats, or in one'), which is enough to separate it from read_chat and get_message. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'in all their chats, or in one' implies you scope with chat_id when you know the chat, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus read_chat or catch_up. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources