Retrieves all messages in a MIeL forum topic, including author, role, date, text, and links, using a subject and topic ID from the topic list. Reading may mark the topic as read.
Devuelve los mensajes de un tema del foro (autor, rol, fecha, texto y
enlaces). tema_id sale de listar_temas_foro. Leerlo puede marcarlo como
leído en MIeL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| materia | Yes | ||
| tema_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by stating the return contents and, importantly, disclosing the side effect that reading the topic "puede marcarlo como leído en MIeL"; it does not cover permissions, pagination, or error behavior, but the side effect disclosure is significant.
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 two sentences and front-loads the purpose before adding parameter provenance and the read-marking side effect. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary padding.
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 description partially compensates for the lack of annotations and output schema by listing returned fields and warning about the read-marking side effect. However, it leaves `materia` semantically unexplained and does not address pagination, permissions, or error behavior, so it is only adequate for a two-required-parameter tool.
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 compensate for both parameters. It explains where `tema_id` comes from, but it does not explain what `materia` means or how it relates to the topic, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 a specific verb and resource: it returns the messages of a forum topic, and it explicitly lists the message fields returned. The phrase "`tema_id` sale de listar_temas_foro" also distinguishes this tool from the sibling that lists topics rather than reading a topic's messages.
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 gives useful usage context by noting that `tema_id` comes from `listar_temas_foro`, implying this tool is used after listing topics. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond parameter provenance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.