Retrieve individual SMS messages for a specific phone number using its number ID. Fetches up to a set limit of messages, not grouped threads.
Get SMS messages for a specific phone number, identified by its number ID. Returns individual messages rather than grouped conversation threads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max messages to return | |
| number_id | Yes | The ID of the phone number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results are individual messages, not threads, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or time-window behavior despite the limit parameter.
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 tightly written sentences with zero waste; the scope and the distinguishing return-granularity note are front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 simple two-parameter read tool this is essentially complete: it tells the agent what it fetches and how the output is shaped. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering or pagination behavior, which the absent output schema would otherwise need to cover.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates that the number is identified by its ID but adds no syntax, format, or usage nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (Get) plus resource (SMS messages) scoped to a phone number identified by number ID. It also distinguishes itself from the conversation-thread siblings by explicitly saying it returns individual messages rather than grouped threads.
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?
The phrase 'rather than grouped conversation threads' implicitly routes the agent to the conversation tools when threads are wanted, giving clear context for selection. It does not name the alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.