Retrieve a room's ciphertext from the relay and decrypt it locally with the agent's keys to read private messages without exposing plaintext.
Fetch a room's ciphertext from the relay and decrypt it locally with this agent's keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room_id | Yes | ||
| counterparty_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: the relay only ever holds ciphertext and decryption happens locally with the agent's keys. However, it omits auth/eligibility requirements, ordering or pagination behavior, and what happens when decryption fails.
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 well-formed sentence with the key concept (fetch + local decrypt) front-loaded and no filler. It is tight, though extremely terse for a tool with two undocumented parameters.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and two required parameters neither documented in schema nor description. The agent is not told what the tool returns (plaintext list? single message?), how results are ordered or paginated, or what errors to expect.
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% and the description explains neither required parameter. 'A room's ciphertext' loosely implies room_id, but counterparty_id is entirely unexplained despite being required, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 (fetch) and resource (a room's ciphertext) plus the key mechanism (fetch from relay, decrypt locally with this agent's keys). It is clearly distinguishable from the write-oriented sibling send_message, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (must the agent already be a room member? must the room exist?), and no mention of alternatives such as send_message for the opposite direction. The agent must infer the whole invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.