wilma_read_messageFetches the full text of a Wilma message and its thread replies by message ID so assistants can review the complete conversation; include the student when multiple accounts are connected.
Full text of one Wilma message, including thread replies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Message id from a list. | |
| student | No | The student the message was listed under (required when several Wilmas are connected). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that — that thread replies are included in the returned text. It does not cover error behavior for an invalid id or cross-Wilma resolution.
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 that front-loads the core content ('full text of one message') and appends the one non-obvious qualifier (thread replies). No filler.
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 simple single-record read with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description states what is returned and its notable extra (thread replies). Minor gap: no mention of failure modes such as an unknown id or an ambiguous student across connected Wilmas.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the conditional requirement on 'student'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names the resource ('one Wilma message') and the scope of content returned ('full text... including thread replies'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling wilma_list_messages. It lacks an explicit verb, but the retrieval intent is 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for opening a single message after listing. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the wilma_list_messages prerequisite, and no note about the optional student parameter condition beyond what the schema says.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.