Skip to main content
Glama

Last interaction

get_last_interaction
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the most recent message exchanged with a contact using their phone number, JID, or name, including messages they sent anywhere or in a direct chat.

Instructions

Get the most recent message exchanged with a contact (sent by them anywhere, or in their direct chat).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contact": "<contact>"
    },
    "name": "get_last_interaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contactYesphone number, JID or contact name

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
foundYes
messageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic context about which message counts (one sent by the contact, in any chat or their direct chat), but says nothing about behavior when no message exists or about ordering/timestamps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the clarifying parenthetical immediately after. No filler and nothing redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, the parenthetical 'sent by them anywhere, or in their direct chat' leaves direction slightly ambiguous and does not address the empty-result case, which matters for a lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'contact' parameter already documents accepted forms (phone number, JID, or contact name). The description adds no resolution details such as ambiguity handling or name-matching behavior, so it stays at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the most recent message exchanged with a contact') and narrows the scope of what counts as an interaction. It does not name any sibling (e.g. list_messages or get_message_context) to draw a boundary, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for a single latest-message lookup rather than a listing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over list_messages or get_message_context, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.