Fetch messages from a DM thread with a specific user, newest first. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return (1-100). | |
| username | Yes | Username of the other participant |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum results per page (1-100). Pass the prior response's ``next_cursor`` in ``cursor`` to fetch the next page."New value: +"Maximum results to return (1-100)."Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum messages to return (1-100), newest first"New value: +"Maximum results per page (1-100). Pass the prior response's ``next_cursor`` in ``cursor`` to fetch the next page."Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by stating the newest-first ordering and the authentication requirement, which are not visible from annotations alone.
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 two short sentences with no redundant content. The core action and ordering are front-loaded, and the authentication note adds necessary context without bloat.
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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters, an output schema, and robust annotations, the description is complete. It covers the resource type, the participant scope, ordering, and authentication, leaving no important gap.
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%, with both limit and username already explained in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema fully covers parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the operation as fetching messages from a DM thread with a specific user, and specifies ordering as newest first. This distinguishes it from related tools like colony_get_group_conversation and colony_list_conversations.
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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: retrieving a DM thread with a specific user. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'DM thread with a specific user' phrasing is sufficient to orient the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.