poll_messagesRetrieve incoming messages with IDs above a specified cursor (up to 100) without marking them read; omit the cursor to get only the current message cursor.
Incoming messages with an id above since (max 100). Without since only the current cursor comes back. Marks nothing as read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: a 100-message cap, cursor-only response when 'since' is omitted, and the fact that nothing is marked as read. It does not detail the response shape, but no output schema exists to carry that burden.
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 short clauses, front-loaded with the main filtering rule and followed by the key edge case and side-effect note. Every sentence carries useful information.
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 read-only polling tool with no output schema and a single optional parameter, the description covers the essential semantics: filtering, cap, cursor-only fallback, and non-mutating behavior. The exact response shape remains unspecified, which is a minor gap rather than a blocker.
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 for the single undocumented parameter. It does so by defining 'since' as an id threshold and explaining the different behavior when it is omitted, which goes beyond the bare integer schema.
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 uses a specific verb-and-resource framing ('Incoming messages with an id above since') and states the core retrieval behavior. It does not explicitly name a sibling like read_conversation to distinguish scope, but the name and description together make the purpose clear.
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 important edge case of omitting 'since' and the max result size, which implies polling usage. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of related tools such as read_conversation or get_feed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.