get_slack_threadThe saved messages of one Slack thread, oldest first: the parent and every reply the brain holds. Only threads from channels the user switched on are stored; an empty result means the thread was not captured, and the fix is enabling that channel on the Slack integrations page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_ts | Yes | The thread's parent ts (from a search result). | |
| channel_id | Yes | The channel id (C…/D…). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: data comes from a stored 'brain' capture, channel enablement is a prerequisite, and empty results have a specific meaning and remedy. No contradiction.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The result shape is front-loaded, and the storage caveat and empty-result behavior follow logically.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description explains what is returned, the ordering, the storage scope, and the meaning of an empty result. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description does not add any extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 clearly names the resource (a single Slack thread) and what it returns (the parent and every reply, oldest first). It also distinguishes from sibling search/list tools by emphasizing 'one Slack thread' from the stored messages.
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 provides strong contextual guidance: this reads only captured threads and an empty result means the channel was not enabled, with a concrete fix. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.
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.