Lists messages but is migrated and always returns an error; use inbox_peek, inbox_history, or event_get instead.
MIGRATED (S3): replaced by inbox_peek / inbox_history (your messages) and event_get (bus traffic). Always returns ok:false code=MIGRATED.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: it discloses the exact return contract ('Always returns ok:false code=MIGRATED'), so an agent knows the call is a guaranteed no-op failure and can avoid it entirely.
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 beginning with 'MIGRATED' conveys status, replacements, and exact behavior with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 deprecated stub, the description covers everything an agent needs: deprecation status, replacement routing, and the deterministic failure response. An output schema exists, but the description still correctly summarizes the return contract rather than leaving the agent to discover it.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter discussion is needed or given.
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 exactly what this tool now is: a migrated tombstone that always returns ok:false code=MIGRATED. It names the sibling replacements (inbox_peek, inbox_history, event_get) so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart from them without inspecting any schema.
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?
Explicit routing: it says the tool is replaced and maps each use case to its correct alternative — inbox_peek/inbox_history for 'your messages' and event_get for 'bus traffic'. There is no ambiguity about when not to call this tool and what to call instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.