Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
himalaya-mcp

himalaya-mcp

by Data-Wise
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read_thread

Fetch all messages in a conversation thread by thread ID, returned in chronological order. Start with list_threads to find thread IDs.

Instructions

Read all messages in a conversation thread. Given a thread_id (the ID of the first message), fetches all related messages and returns them in chronological order. Use list_threads first to get thread IDs.

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": {
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>"
    },
    "name": "read_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderNoFolder name (default: INBOX)
accountNoAccount name (uses default if omitted)
thread_idYesID of the thread's first message (from list_threads output)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses it returns messages in chronological order and implies it's a read operation. But lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or rate limits.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage hint. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema, but description explains returns chronological messages. Could detail the return format (e.g., fields per message), but given low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, yet description adds value by clarifying thread_id comes from list_threads output, folder defaults to INBOX, account uses default.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read all messages in a conversation thread', specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_threads (which lists threads) and read_email (single message).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Description provides explicit guidance: 'Use list_threads first to get thread IDs', indicating prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools