Read one of the user's OWN message conversations by thread_id, including its messages (marks incoming messages read). Only threads the authenticated user participates in are returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes | Conversation id (a UUID), taken from list_conversations. Example: "3f6c2a1e-8b4d-4c7a-9e21-5d0f7a6b1c34". |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / thread_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Conversation id (a UUID), taken from list_conversations. Example: \"3f6c2a1e-8b4d-4c7a-9e21-5d0f7a6b1c34\"."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the otherwise puzzling readOnlyHint=false by disclosing the side effect: incoming messages are marked read. It also states the authorization boundary (only threads the user participates in are returned). It does not describe what happens when the thread_id is invalid or the user is not a participant, but the important behavior is covered.
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 compact sentences; the core action and scope come first, followed by the side-effect caveat and access restriction. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, the single parameter is fully documented, and the description covers the two things structured fields cannot: the read-marking side effect and the participation filter. Nothing material is missing for a one-param read tool.
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 thread_id parameter already documents its UUID format, example, and provenance from list_conversations. The description only restates that lookup is by thread_id, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one of the user's OWN message conversations) plus scope (by thread_id, including its messages). It implicitly separates itself from list_conversations by fetching a single thread, but never names that sibling 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?
Usage context is implied by 'by thread_id' and the schema's reference to list_conversations as the id source, so an agent can infer the list-then-read flow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative (e.g., use list_conversations to enumerate, reply_to_conversation to answer).
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.