Incrementally read new messages from the WeChat listening buffer. Pass the previous next_seq as after_seq to get only new messages, optionally filtering by chat_name.
增量读取监听缓冲区中新增的消息。传入上次返回的 next_seq 作为 after_seq，即可只获取新消息。可选用 chat_name 限定单个会话。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| after_seq | No | ||
| chat_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the incremental/buffer polling model and the next_seq feedback loop, which is valuable, but says nothing about permissions, whether the buffer is destructive to read (it seems non-destructive), or rate/limit 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?
Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the incremental-read purpose, then the after_seq workflow, then the optional filter. No filler, though it stops short of a crisp one-line summary.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the description still usefully references next_seq. For a 3-param read tool this is largely complete, missing only limit semantics and any safety/permission context.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains after_seq (feed back the last next_seq) and chat_name (limit to one conversation) well, but the limit parameter is never mentioned. Two of three parameters are covered, leaving a real gap under 0% schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb+resource: incrementally reading newly added messages from the monitoring buffer. The '增量/新增消息' framing distinguishes it from get_chat_history, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
It explains the intended call pattern clearly: pass the previously returned next_seq as after_seq to fetch only new messages, and optionally constrain to one conversation with chat_name. This is a clear use context, but it never contrasts with get_chat_history or states when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.