Get message
simpletexting_get_messageGet a single message by its id, including its text, direction, status, and timestamps. SimpleTexting REST: GET /messages/{id}.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | Message id. |
simpletexting_get_messageGet a single message by its id, including its text, direction, status, and timestamps. SimpleTexting REST: GET /messages/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | Message id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral detail including returned fields and the underlying REST endpoint, enhancing clarity beyond annotations without 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: first states purpose, second provides developer context. No unnecessary words; both sentences earn their place.
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?
No output schema, but description covers main returned fields. Single parameter with clear purpose. Adequate for a simple retrieval tool, though could note typical response size or error scenarios.
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% with parameter description 'Message id.' Description does not add additional format constraints or examples beyond what schema provides, meeting baseline for high coverage.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'single message', and lists specific returned fields (text, direction, status, timestamps). Distinguished from siblings like list_messages and send_message.
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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. Implies usage when message id is known, but does not differentiate from similar tools like simpletexting_evaluate_message.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: evaluate vs send, get vs list for campaigns/contacts/media/messages, and update for contacts. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent 'simpletexting_verb_noun' pattern with lowercase and underscores. Verbs are imperative (evaluate, get, list, send, update) and nouns use singular for get and plural for list, as expected.
11 tools is well-scoped for a messaging API, covering the core operations without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose and earns its place.
Significant gaps exist: no create or delete for contacts, campaigns, or media; no delete for messages. The surface is read-heavy with only send and update as write operations, limiting full lifecycle management.