Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

OurFamilyWizard MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ofw_get_message

Fetch a single OurFamilyWizard message or draft by ID, with an option to refuse marking an unread inbox message 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. Changed1 schema field changedv2.15.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response 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.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation by disclosing the irreversible, co-parent-visible mark-read side effect, the First Viewed timestamp, and the exact conditions under which it happens. It also explains cache versus fetch behavior and draft-specific response differences, giving the agent a precise mental model of side effects.

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 core action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact rather than repeating flourishes. The length is justified by the tool's side-effect complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-message getter with a subtle write-behavior trap, the description is complete: it covers cache reads, irreversible marking, the opt-out flag, draft routing, and folder values for each message category. There is no output schema, but the behavioral and routing details an agent needs are all present.

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%, giving the baseline of 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for messageId: supplying a draft ID yields folder=drafts and draft-cache values, including no fromUser and modifiedAt-mirrored timestamps. allowMarkRead semantics are also reinforced, though largely restating the schema.

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-plus-resource statement: Get a single OurFamilyWizard message OR draft by ID. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling list and draft utilities and states the exact unit of work.

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?

It gives strong situational context: when a cache read is possible no stamping occurs, and when a fetch of an unread inbox message would mark it read, with allowMarkRead:false as an opt-out. However, it never explicitly names when to prefer this over a sibling such as ofw_list_messages or ofw_list_drafts, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools