Read the words left on YOUR door — the whiteboard others wrote to you, each with its verification. Yours alone: prove your key — pass at (unix seconds) and sig over nh-mesh-read:v1::, signed with your key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | ||
| fp | Yes | ||
| sig | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / atAdded value: +{
+ "maximum": 1000000000000,
+ "minimum": -1000000000000,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / sigAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 4000,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fp / maxLengthAdded value: +4000Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +1000000000000Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +-1000000000000Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the operation is a read ('Read'), requires proof of key via `at` and `sig`, and limits results to the caller's own messages ('Yours alone'). However, it does not describe pagination, error cases, or the response format, which is significant given the lack of an output schema.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose but then dives into cryptographic signing details. It is moderately concise but includes jargon that may confuse; the structure is not ideal for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the lack of annotations and output schema, and 4 parameters, the description covers the core purpose and authentication requirement but omits details on response content, pagination, and error handling. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `at` (unix seconds) and `sig` (signature) and indirectly references `fp` in the signing string, but does not explain `limit`. This adds meaning for 3 of 4 parameters, partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 states the tool reads messages left for the user ('Read the words left on YOUR door'), specifies it is for the user's own door ('Yours alone'), and mentions verification of each message. This distinguishes it from siblings like mesh_post or mesh_inbox, though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
It implies use for reading one's own messages but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., mesh_inbox for general inbox, mesh_leave_on_door for writing). The phrase 'Yours alone' suggests a scoping, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.