Check unread messages and recent threads. Pass a person's handle to open the full conversation.
See your unread messages and recent threads. Pass a handle to open that conversation in full.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | No | Optional: open the full conversation with this person (e.g. "coltrane"). Omit to list all threads. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.18Input schema / properties / handleAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: open the full conversation with this person (e.g. \"coltrane\"). Omit to list all threads.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.4.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states it reads unread messages and threads and can open a full conversation, covering basic functionality. However, it does not state that it is read-only (no mutation), mention any authentication or scope requirements, or describe what 'full' means in output volume. This is a minimal disclosure.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior of the handle is stated clearly. Every word 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is suitably complete: it tells the agent what will be returned (threads) and how to drill into a conversation. Minor gaps (e.g., pagination, definition of 'recent') exist but are not critical for basic invocation.
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 input schema fully describes the handle parameter (optional, open conversation, omit to list threads), and the description repeats this information almost verbatim. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 clear verb-resource pairing: 'see your unread messages and recent threads' and explains the optional handle parameter. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like vibe_dm or vibe_status, but the resource scope (unread messages/threads) is distinct enough to be understood.
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 implies usage (list threads or open a specific conversation) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions. It never mentions sibling tools or conditions that would route an agent here instead of vibe_dm.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.