get_friend_msg_historyRetrieve past messages from a friend or temporary chat by QQ user ID. Optionally limit the count or start from a specific message sequence.
获取与指定好友/临时会话的历史消息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | 获取数量 | |
| user_id | Yes | 好友QQ号 | |
| message_seq | No | 起始消息序号 |
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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the data is historical and scoped to a friend/temp chat; it does not disclose ordering, count defaults, or return behavior, which is acceptable but not rich.
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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose and scope. There is no redundant restatement of the title or filler content.
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 simple read-only history tool, the description plus schema and annotations is mostly complete. The lack of an output schema and any detail on count/message_seq defaults or ordering leaves a small gap, but not one that prevents correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents user_id, count, and message_seq. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, matching the baseline of 3.
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 concrete verb and resource: retrieving historical messages for a specified friend or temporary session. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_group_msg_history (group history) and get_msg (single message).
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?
The description gives a clear usage context ('friend/temporary session'), which implies it is not for group histories. However, it does not explicitly name get_group_msg_history as the alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.