Retrieve the conversation context around a specific Discord message, ordered oldest first. Provide the channel and message IDs to view surrounding messages and understand the discussion.
The messages around one message, oldest first
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Messages to return, centred on the message | |
| channel_id | Yes | Channel or thread id of the message | |
| message_id | Yes | Message id |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value beyond the schema by stating the oldest-first ordering and the contextual 'around one message' nature. However, it does not disclose whether the anchor message itself is included, how edge cases are handled, or that this is a read-only operation, leaving notable gaps.
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?
The description is a single eight-word sentence with zero fluff. It front-loads the core concept and every word contributes to meaning. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple read operation, and the schema covers all parameters fully. However, there is no output schema and no mention of the return shape, edge cases (e.g., insufficient messages before/after), or whether the anchor message is included. Given the absence of annotations, a bit more behavioral context would make this more complete.
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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: 'around one message' loosely maps to message_id, but the schema already documents message_id and limit's centering behavior adequately. No additional parameter nuance is provided.
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 (messages around a specific message) and the ordering behavior (oldest first), which distinguishes it from siblings like channel_messages or channel_search. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'Retrieve' or 'List', so it reads as a noun-phrase description rather than a full purpose statement.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool over channel_messages, channel_search, or other siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the name and brief phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.