list_messagesList messages from guest-communication threads. OwnerRez API: GET /v2/messages. Use params for documented filters (e.g. booking_id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return per page (default set by OwnerRez, typically 10). | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip (for paging; combine with limit). | |
| params | No | Additional documented query-string filters to send verbatim (merged with the typed params above). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / params / additionalProperties / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / params / additionalProperties / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number",
+ "boolean"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description is not the load-bearing source of safety info. It adds the raw endpoint and the params-merging behavior, but says nothing about pagination semantics or how threading affects results.
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?
Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, no padding. The endpoint reference is mildly redundant given the tool name but is short and harmless.
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?
With no output schema, the description could have said what a message record contains or how threads group messages, and it does not. Params and annotations are otherwise adequate for a list tool, so this is minimum-viable rather than deficient.
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%, so limit/offset/params are already fully documented, and baseline 3 applies. The description adds a concrete filter example (booking_id) that the schema's generic "additional documented query-string filters" text lacks, but this is a marginal gain.
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 and resource ("List messages from guest-communication threads") and pins it to the OwnerRez endpoint GET /v2/messages. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like list_inquiries, which could plausibly return overlapping guest communication.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; nothing tells the agent how this differs from list_inquiries or when a params filter is required versus optional. The only operational hint is "Use `params` for documented filters," which is a parameter mechanic rather than usage context.
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.