Skip to main content
Glama

ofw_get_message

Destructive

Fetch a message or draft from OurFamilyWizard by ID using cached data first. Set allowMarkRead:false to prevent marking unread inbox messages as read.

Instructions

Get a single OurFamilyWizard message OR draft by ID. Reads from local cache when available; otherwise fetches from OFW — and for an UNREAD INBOX message that fetch marks it read and stamps a "First Viewed" time the co-parent can see, which is part of the record and cannot be undone. Pass allowMarkRead:false to refuse such a fetch instead (cached bodies, sent messages and already-read messages are unaffected, because none of them stamp anything). For ids that match a draft (in the drafts cache), the response carries folder="drafts" and the body/subject/recipients reflect the drafts cache (which ofw_sync_messages keeps fresh) — drafts have no fromUser, and sentAt/fetchedBodyAt mirror the draft's modifiedAt. For inbox/sent messages, folder is "inbox" or "sent" as before.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact omits OurFamilyWizard's raw `listData` echo, which duplicates this record's own id, subject, sentAt, recipients and read flag; the sender is promoted to `from`, and `files`/`replied` are kept. Pass "full" for the echo.
messageIdYesMessage ID (also accepts draft IDs — drafts are routed via the drafts cache)
allowMarkReadNoDefault true (the long-standing behaviour). Set false to refuse a fetch that would mark an unread INBOX message as READ on OurFamilyWizard — an irreversible, co-parent-visible change to the record. Reads that cannot stamp anything (a cached body, a sent message, an already-read message) still succeed. The server-wide OFW_ALLOW_MARK_READ=false is a ceiling this argument cannot raise.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.19.4

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the precise side effect: fetching an unread inbox message marks it read, stamps a co-parent-visible 'First Viewed' time, and this cannot be undone. It also explains which reads are side-effect-free and how the allowMarkRead parameter interacts with the server-wide setting.

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?

The description is long but every sentence carries distinct operational information: cache behavior, side-effect warning, opt-out path, draft routing, and folder semantics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and side-effect warning before the detailed draft behavior, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with this much nuance.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and it mostly delivers: it specifies folder values, draft-specific fields, mirroring of timestamps, and the compact/full distinction is covered in the schema. Minor gaps include no explicit failure/not-found behavior, but overall the agent has enough context to call this tool and interpret its main response.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is already met. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema, especially for allowMarkRead (irreversible co-parent-visible stamp, refusal behavior, unaffected cases) and for draft IDs (folder="drafts", no fromUser, sentAt/fetchedBodyAt mirroring modifiedAt). The view parameter is only covered by the schema, but the added parameter semantics still push this above the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get a single OurFamilyWizard message OR draft by ID." It clearly distinguishes this single-record retrieval tool from the list-oriented siblings and immediately communicates the draft/message dual behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the core usage context clear: reads cache when available, otherwise fetches, and tells the agent exactly when to pass allowMarkRead:false. It does not explicitly name list-oriented alternatives, but the single-by-ID semantics are unambiguous enough that an agent can select this tool correctly.

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