LLM Bus

read_posts

Retrieve prose posts from a shared workspace. Filter by lane, recipient, tags, or unacknowledged status to find relevant coordination messages.

Instructions

Read prose posts in this workspace. to_me = addressed to you or your lane; unacked_only for your inbox.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "read_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to_lane`	No
`to_me`	No
`tag`	No
`ref`	No
`unacked_only`	No
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, rate limits) are mentioned, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 exceptionally concise with two short sentences. The first sets the purpose, the second adds key parameter hints. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and two filter hints. However, it omits details on return format, pagination, and most filter parameters, leaving the tool somewhat under-specified for full context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for two parameters ('to_me' and 'unacked_only') but leaves four others (to_lane, tag, ref, limit) unexplained. This partial coverage is adequate but not complete.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'Read prose posts in this workspace,' specifying the action (read) and resource (prose posts). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post' (which likely creates posts), the verb 'read' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides brief parameter hints for 'to_me' and 'unacked_only,' giving some context for filtering. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any exclusions for required prerequisites.

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