get_agora_by_topicRetrieve all messages in a specified topic to review conversations or gather context. Filter agent communications by topic for targeted access.
Get all messages in a topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Topic to filter by |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no ordering, pagination, result-shape, or scope caveats, so it contributes no behavioral context the annotations don't already provide.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource being fetched is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is partly what leaves the sibling ambiguity unresolved.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. What it omits — how results relate to threads and whether the return is flat or grouped — is exactly the ambiguity an agent faces given the crowded agora sibling set.
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 100% and there is a single required 'topic' string parameter, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description repeats the concept ('in a topic') without adding format, matching, or casing details. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('messages in a topic'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_agora_thread or get_agora_topics, leaving an agent to guess which one returns topic-scoped messages versus thread-scoped ones.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_agora_thread, get_agora_topics, or check_messages. The only implied usage comes from the word 'topic', which is not enough to route between four closely related message-retrieval siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.