Fetch the latest SMS texts and transcribed calls received on a line, newest first. Includes best-effort verification codes in the response.
Recent texts and transcribed calls received by one line, newest first. Read body as well as code: code is a best-effort extraction and can be null.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many messages to return. 1 to 200. | |
| lineId | Yes | The line's id, from list_lines. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it adds useful context beyond the schema by disclosing order (newest first) and the note that code is a best-effort extraction and can be null. It also explicitly tells the agent to read body, which is genuinely useful behavioral guidance. It omits broader details like pagination or full return shape, but covers the key warning.
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?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the core behavior, and adds a targeted warning in a second sentence. Every element earns its place and nothing is wasted.
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?
The description gives enough for an agent to invoke correctly by identifying resource, ordering, key fields, and the nullable code field. Given the tool's modest complexity, the key missing pieces are minor since the schema is simple and output schema is absent but largely inferred.
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 parameters are described in the schema with descriptions. The tool description contributes no extra parameter semantics beyond clarifying that one line is involved, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly identifies what is returned: recent texts and transcribed calls for a single line, ordered newest first. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_lines and code-focused tools such as latest_code. The resource and scope are unmistakable.
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?
The description implies the main use case: fetching recent messages or transcribed calls for a line. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool instead of latest_code or wait_for_code. Guidance 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.