Jiji MCP

jiji_read_conversation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read recent messages for a conversation key from list_conversations, with an option to mark the conversation as read without sending anything.

Instructions

Read recent messages for a conversation key returned by list_conversations. This can mark it as read; it sends nothing.

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "jiji_read_conversation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.3Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses two behaviors an agent could not otherwise know: the call may mark the conversation as read, and it sends no message to the counterparty. The read-marking side effect is in mild tension with readOnlyHint=true, but the description discloses rather than hides it, so it informs rather than misleads.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the safety caveat second. Every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and one parameter with a stated provenance covers the input side. Slightly incomplete on what happens to the read state on repeat calls, though idempotentHint partly covers that.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains where the single `key` comes from (list_conversations), which the schema does not. It does not mention the 24-character hex format, leaving that to the pattern in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read recent messages for a conversation key") and ties the key's provenance to the sibling list_conversations, so an agent can place it in the conversation workflow. It stops short of contrasting itself with adjacent read tools such as jiji_message_status or jiji_prepare_message.

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?

The prerequisite (a key returned by list_conversations) is stated, which is real routing value. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so an agent must infer that this is the only way to fetch messages.

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