join_to_threadSubscribe to an existing thread using its thread_id to start receiving updates. Joining is reversible with leave_thread, requiring no confirmation.
Подписка на тред по thread_id (§17.10). Это вступление в тред, не создание и не отправка. Легко откатывается leave_thread, поэтому confirm не требует.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes | ChatId треда (дериватив get_thread) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive. Description adds context about easy rollback and no confirmation needed, which complements the annotations without contradiction.
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?
Two concise sentences with key information front-loaded: action, parameter, and important nuances (rollback, no confirm). No wasted words.
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?
Given simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and ample annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter completely. No gaps.
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 coverage is 100% and schema describes thread_id as 'ChatId треда (дериватив get_thread)'. Description repeats the parameter usage but adds no new semantics beyond what schema provides.
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?
Clearly states the tool subscribes/joins a thread by thread_id, distinguishes from creating or sending messages, and differentiates from sibling tools like leave_thread and get_thread.
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?
Explicitly mentions when to use (thread_id), what it is not (creation/sending), and notes easy rollback via leave_thread. Lacks explicit comparison with all siblings but provides sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.