message_statusCheck the routing and delivery status of a message you sent. See if it was sent, shown, answered, or held for later delivery.
Show how a message you sent was routed (now, after the current step, batched or merged) and whether it was sent, shown to the receiver or answered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | The message id returned by send_message |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the routing outcomes (now, after the current step, batched, merged) and the delivery states (sent, shown, answered) that the tool reports — important given there is no output schema. It does not cover what happens for an unknown message_id or any error behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no wasted preamble. The parenthetical enumerations are dense but earn their space by defining the possible states, though the stacked list makes it slightly harder to scan.
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 one-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description supplies the conceptual return values an agent needs to interpret results. Missing only error/edge-case behavior and explicit usage triggers, which are minor for this complexity level.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents message_id fully, including its provenance from send_message. The description adds no format, constraint, or edge-case guidance beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.
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 ('show') and a specific resource (how a sent message was routed plus its delivery/read state), which clearly separates it from siblings like send_message, list_channels, or peer_status. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling tool produces the message_id, relying on the schema for that linkage.
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?
Use context is implied by 'a message you sent' and the schema note that message_id comes from send_message, so an agent can infer this is a post-send verification call. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.