wilma_list_messagesList school messages newest first by folder and child, showing subject, sender, date, and ID; use the read tool for full message text.
Wilma messages, newest first (subject, sender, date, id). Use wilma_read_message for the full text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | Default: inbox. | |
| student | No | Child's name or student number. Omit to include every child on the account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add operational detail. It does that by disclosing the sort order and the returned fields, though it omits pagination behavior and the effect of the limit cap of 100.
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, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the sibling redirect. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, the parenthetical field list (subject, sender, date, id) usefully compensates by telling the agent what each item looks like. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, only pagination/limit behavior is left implicit for a tool with three optional parameters.
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 coverage is 67%: folder and student are documented in the schema, while limit has only min/max bounds. The description says nothing about any parameter, adding no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level but leaves the limit semantics entirely to inference.
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?
States the resource (Wilma messages), the ordering (newest first), and the fields returned, which lets an agent distinguish this listing tool from wilma_read_message at a glance. It could be sharper with an explicit verb, but 'messages, newest first' plus the title makes the operation unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to wilma_read_message for full message text, which is the key branch point among these siblings. It gives no guidance on when to prefer other listing tools (news, printouts) or on folder selection, so usage context is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.