read_threadReturn the messages in one introduction's chat. Use this when the user wants to read or catch up on a conversation with a matched member. Reading marks the messages as read for the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| match_id | Yes | ||
| join_code | No | The join_code from sign_up, when a new member saved their join answers in this conversation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / join_codeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The join_code from sign_up, when a new member saved their join answers in this conversation",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / claim_codeRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The claim_code from sign_up or sign_in, if the account is not connected in this conversation",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds an important side effect beyond the annotations: reading marks the messages as read for the user. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and gives the agent useful behavioral context, though it does not discuss pagination, ordering, or auth prerequisites.
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?
The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage and side-effect information. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.
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?
It covers the core return behavior and the read-marking side effect, which is important for a tool with no output schema. However, it leaves gaps around message ordering, pagination via limit, and the role of join_code, so it is adequate but not fully complete.
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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not explain match_id or limit. It only implies that the thread is tied to a matched member, leaving key parameter semantics to the bare schema.
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 and resource: returning the messages in one introduction's chat. It clearly scopes the operation to one introduction and distinguishes it from sibling actions like send_message or list_matches.
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 explicitly says to use this when the user wants to read or catch up on a conversation with a matched member. It gives clear usage context, though it does not name exclusions or sibling alternatives for finding a match or sending replies.
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.