Retrieve chat messages from a Vyntryx scan session, optionally filtering to messages after a given ID or timestamp for incremental updates.
Chat messages of a scan session (what the Vyntryx UI shows), optionally only those after since (an id or timestamp from an earlier call).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that these are chat messages 'what the Vyntryx UI shows' and that `since` enables incremental retrieval, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or volume behavior beyond that.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. The optional filtering behavior is attached directly to the resource being described.
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 two-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource and explains the incremental filter. Minor gaps remain around session_id semantics and message ordering, but the output schema can carry return-value details.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains `since` well as an id or timestamp from an earlier call, but does not explain `session_id` beyond its name, leaving one of two parameters only self-evident.
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 clearly states that the tool retrieves chat messages for a scan session, which is a specific verb implied by the resource and distinct from the write-oriented sibling vyntryx_post_message. It does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 implies usage by identifying the resource and explaining the optional `since` filter for incremental fetches. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vyntryx_post_message or other session-related tools, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.