time-messenger-mcp-server

search_messages

Search messages within a specific team by providing the team ID and search terms to quickly locate relevant conversations.

Instructions

Search messages in a team

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "team_id": "<team_id>",
      "terms": "<terms>"
    },
    "name": "search_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`terms`	Yes	Search terms
`team_id`	Yes	Team ID to search in

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's basic purpose and does not mention search behavior, result limits, pagination, auth requirements, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It states the action and scope efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what kind of matches are returned, ordering, pagination, or how to interpret the response, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already explained in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Search messages in a team' uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('messages'), with a scope ('in a team'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_channels, search_users, and get_channel_messages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_channel_messages or search_channels. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.