Retrieve visible messages and members from a specific Moodle conversation. Filter by limit, offset, or time to review discussion history without sending or deleting content.
Lee mensajes y miembros visibles de una conversación; no envía ni borra nada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| newest | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| time_from | No | ||
| conversation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement that it doesn't send or delete is redundant. However, it adds that it also lists members, which is additional context beyond the annotations. No other behavioral details like pagination or rate limits are disclosed, but given strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable.
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 that states the core action and a key safety property. No filler or redundant phrasing, so it is highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema. The description is too brief to cover pagination controls (limit, offset, newest), time filtering (time_from), or the semantics of 'visible members.' An agent needs more context to correctly configure the call, especially since only conversation_id is required. The tool is more complex than the description acknowledges.
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 0% and the description provides no explanation of any of the 5 parameters (limit, newest, offset, time_from, conversation_id). The parameter names are not self-explanatory, and without description guidance, an agent must rely on schema titles alone, which are minimal. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 the tool reads messages and visible members from a conversation, and explicitly notes it does not send or delete anything. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_messages and list_conversations, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_messages or list_conversations. It implies read-only usage but lacks a clear directive like 'use this when you have a conversation_id' or 'for global messages use list_messages instead.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.