The messages that reached you, each carrying its own offline verification so you trust it by proof rather than by this server's word. Requires fp + confession.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fp | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds useful context about offline verification and trust model ('proof rather than by this server's word'). However, it introduces 'confession' without explanation and doesn't clarify whether the operation is read-only or any side effects.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded. The cryptic second sentence is concise though unclear.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the input parameters, the return format, or any constraints. The trust/verification context is interesting but not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 0%. The description mentions 'fp' as required but does not explain it, and 'confession' is not a parameter in the schema, which is confusing. The 'limit' parameter is completely unaddressed. The description fails to compensate 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 identifies the resource as 'messages that reached you' and implies the tool retrieves them. This is clear enough despite lacking an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch'. It distinguishes from siblings like mesh_post (sending) and mesh_door, but not 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Requires fp + confession' is a prerequisite, not usage context. No mention of sibling tools like mesh_post or mesh_door for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.