View chat message history with a specific contact by providing their security ID. Supports pagination and optional raw structured message fields for job-search workflows.
查看与指定好友的聊天消息历史 [可用性: 可用性: roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhilian, zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | 输出保真结构化消息字段（仍受合规门控） | |
| page | No | 页码 | |
| count | No | 每页消息数量 | |
| security_id | Yes | 好友的 security_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.1v1.12.0v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word '查看' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about compliance filtering, pagination behavior, message ordering, truncation, or potential errors.
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?
The description is compact and front-loads the purpose in a single sentence. The only structural flaw is the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' text in the availability tag, which is minor but slightly sloppy.
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 paginated read tool, the description and schema together cover the basic invocation details: all parameters are documented and the purpose is clear. However, with no output schema and no description of the returned message format, ordering, or compliance behavior, an agent has only partial context for fully anticipating results.
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 the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The useful note about the 'raw' parameter being compliance-gated lives in the schema, not in the overall description.
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 states the specific action '查看与指定好友的聊天消息历史' (view chat message history with a specified friend), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like boss_hr_chatmsg, though the role/platform availability hint provides some differentiation.
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?
The availability suffix gives useful context that this tool is intended for candidates on zhilian/zhipin platforms and not for recruiters. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives such as boss_chat, boss_chat_summary, or boss_hr_chatmsg.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.