Get a chat's title, kind, and latest run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | Yes | A chat id (aichat_...). A run id works too — it resolves to that run's chat. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | No | ||
| context_type | No | ||
| latest_run_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 parameter schema adds a meaningful behavior—accepting a run id and resolving it to its chat—which goes beyond the annotations. The description itself adds no further behavioral detail, but with annotations present the bar is met.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each phrase ('title, kind, and latest run') adds concrete scope, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. It could be improved by an explicit note that this is the lightweight chat-metadata alternative to get_run, but that is optional.
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%; the chat_id property is fully documented, including the id prefix and the run-id fallback. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb 'Get' applied to the 'chat' resource and enumerates the returned fields ('title, kind, and latest run'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the field list differentiates it from get_run and list_chats.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned; the sentence only states what the tool returns. The schema's note that a run id can be supplied offers some input guidance, but not tool-selection guidance. Usage is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.