Retrieve raw transcript entries for a bot directly from its local SQLite database, avoiding network overhead. Specify agentId to select the bot and limit to cap results.
Directly read raw transcript entries from a bot's local SQLite database without network overhead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries to return (default: 100) | |
| agentId | Yes | The ID of the bot |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits — direct local SQLite access, raw (unprocessed) entries, no network calls — which is more than the schema offers. However, it omits permission/auth needs, whether results are ordered or truncated, and what 'raw' changes versus a formatted transcript.
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?
A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and the local-access nature but leaves the return shape, entry ordering, and the semantics of 'raw' vs. a formatted transcript unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding between this and get_transcript.
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 100%, so both agentId and limit are already documented by the schema, including the default of 100. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (raw transcript entries) with scope (a bot's local SQLite database). It gestures at a distinction from network-based fetching ('without network overhead') but never names the obvious sibling get_transcript, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative even though get_transcript is an obvious candidate. The 'without network overhead' phrase hints at a rationale but never tells the agent when this tool should be preferred over the network-based sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.