Retrieves recent back-and-forth chat messages and transcript for a specific recipient.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of messages to return (default 20, max 100). | |
| agentId | No | Unique ID of the agent profile. If omitted, uses active agent from context. | |
| accountId | No | Optional account ID (automatically scoped). | |
| recipient | Yes | Phone number of the recipient in E.164 format. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Retrieves' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'recent' adds a time-based scope. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or any response structure, which would be useful for a tool with no 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, object, and scope efficiently without 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 tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the basic purpose, but it lacks usage guidance relative to siblings and does not explain return values or ordering, which would be more critical given the absence of an output schema.
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%, so parameter semantics are fully documented. The description adds minimal value beyond echoing 'recipient' and implying limit through 'recent', which does not exceed the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('recent back-and-forth chat messages and transcript') scoped to a recipient. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_inbox_messages, which may also retrieve messaging data.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_message, get_inbox_messages, or get_message_stats. The description implies a recipient-specific use case but does not state exclusions or prefer conditions.
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.