OpenMonetis MCP

Detalhar conversa com a IA

get_ai_chat

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a conversation and its complete message history by chat ID so you can review prior AI interactions and context.

Instructions

Retorna uma conversa com todo o histórico de mensagens.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_ai_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that the whole message history is included; it says nothing about pagination, history size limits, ordering, or what happens with an unknown/invalid id, and there is no output schema to cover the return shape.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence, front-loaded with the return action and scoped by "todo o histórico de mensagens". It is efficient, but the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

For a single-parameter read with rich annotations, the core contract is understandable, but there is no output schema and no statement of return shape (message fields, ordering, pagination), and the lone id parameter is undocumented. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the payload.

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

Parameters2/5

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, and it does not: the single id parameter is never mentioned or explained. The schema itself only supplies type uuid and a regex pattern, leaving the agent to infer that id refers to a chat conversation id rather than, say, a diagnosis or transaction id.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Retorna uma conversa" / returns a conversation) and adds scope: it returns the full message history. That distinguishes it from list_ai_chats (enumeration) and delete_ai_chat, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 by the word "conversa" and the required id: fetch one conversation by identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_ai_chats or get_ai_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server