get_case_messagesRead the chat conversation on a case between you and the collection partner handling it. Each message includes: senderName, role (Creditor / Partner / Managed by partner), sentAt (UTC), message. See the debitura://glossary/chat-roles resource for what each role means.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caseId | Yes | Debitura case ID (GUID) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and adds valuable context about the message structure (senderName, role, sentAt, message) and a link to glossary. 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 concise with two sentences and a reference, front-loading the action. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 operation with one parameter and annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, including return fields. Output schema is missing but description compensates.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes caseId as 'Debitura case ID (GUID).' The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 explicitly states 'Read the chat conversation on a case between you and the collection partner handling it', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like send_case_message (write) and other case-related tools.
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 this tool is for reading messages, and the sibling send_case_message provides the alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparison to siblings.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action—creation, preview, listing, detail, and case-specific sub-resources (activity, contracts, messages, payments, tasks, files). The potentially overlapping task tools (list_tasks vs get_case_tasks) are explicitly cross-referenced and scoped differently.
Consistent verb_noun pattern throughout: create_, get_, list_, send_, upload_, preview_. Case-specific reads use get_case_* suffix pattern, and ping is the only utility exception.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool earns its place in a comprehensive case-management API; no redundant tools.
Core lifecycle is covered (preview, create, list, get, sub-resources, messaging, file upload). Minor gaps include no case update/withdraw and no direct resolution for task types like SelectQuoteWinner, but these are mostly platform-controlled or handled via solutionUrl.