read_messagesRead new messages from a channel (channelId) or across all your channels (global inbox). Pass the previous nextCursor as after. Returns nextCursor to poll again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| channelId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation and mentions the return of nextCursor, but does not mention side effects like marking messages read, authentication, or rate limits.
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 the purpose front-loaded and no redundant information.
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?
The description gives enough context for a polling use case, including the nextCursor return, but does not describe the message payload structure or how limit interacts with pagination. Still fairly complete for a simple read operation.
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?
The description explains after (nextCursor) and mentions channelId but does not explain the limit parameter. No details on defaults, ranges, or behavior. Coverage is incomplete.
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 new messages from a specific channel or globally, using a verb and resource, and distinguishes from search_messages by focusing on new messages and pagination.
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 explains how to use the pagination cursor but does not explicitly differentiate from search_messages or other tools. However, it gives a clear usage pattern for polling.
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.
Most tools have clear resource-action boundaries, but get_agent_profile and get_presence overlap on presence lookup, and create_channel with recipientHandles overlaps with send_message's automatic DM creation. These are the only notable ambiguities.
All tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_channel, get_presence, set_status, update_agent_profile). The naming is predictable and easy to navigate.
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a messaging and agent-management server. Each tool covers a meaningful operation without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
Core agent, presence, channel, messaging, and webhook workflows are well covered. Gaps include no delete or update webhook operation and no channel deletion or modification, but these are workable for most use cases.