Retrieve messages from a Hex thread in chronological order with pagination controls. Use it to audit, review, or debug thread conversations by thread ID.
List messages in a thread (chronological, paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| threadId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose ordering (chronological) and pagination behavior, which are genuine traits beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the read is safely repeatable, or how pagination state is advanced.
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 tight parenthetical with zero waste and the core verb front-loaded. It may be too terse given the surrounding gaps, but as conciseness it is efficient.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across three parameters, the description is under-specified: it does not explain the pagination cursor mechanism, what a message object contains, or how to know when the thread ends.
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 0%, so all three parameters (after, limit, threadId) are undocumented anywhere. The parenthetical 'paginated' vaguely gestures at 'after' and 'limit' but provides no format, cursor semantics, or default limit, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List messages in a thread') and adds scope qualifiers (chronological, paginated). An agent can distinguish it from hex-list-threads and hex-get-thread, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or prerequisites. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over hex-get-thread (thread metadata) or hex-continue-thread, leaving the choice to inference from the names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.