Retrieve open direct messages and group DMs with their channel IDs, sorted by most recent activity first.
The account's open DMs and group DMs with their channel ids; needs the user token
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | DMs to return, most recent activity first |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses an auth prerequisite ('needs the user token') and a scoping detail (open DMs and group DMs only), but it does not characterize the response beyond channel IDs or mention ordering/pagination behavior beyond what the limit schema already covers.
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 sentence that front-loads the resource, return value, and auth requirement with no filler or repetition. Every clause earns its 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?
For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this is nearly complete: it tells the agent what will be returned and that a user token is required. It could specify the full response object shape, but the channel-ID detail is sufficient for downstream use with dm_messages.
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?
The only parameter, limit, is fully described in the schema (default 50, most recent activity first), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond clarifying that the returned DMs carry channel IDs. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.
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 clearly identifies the resource (the account's open DMs and group DMs) and the key output (channel IDs), which makes it distinct from list_guilds. It does not explicitly contrast itself with dm_messages or dm_search, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 description implies this is the entry point for retrieving a user's DM channel IDs and notes the token requirement, but it does not state when to choose it over dm_messages/dm_search or mention exclusions. The context is usable but not explicitly prescriptive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.