grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

chat.users.spaces.threads.getThreadReadState

Retrieves a user's read state for a Chat thread to identify which messages are read or unread.

Instructions

Returns details about a user's read state within a thread, used to identify read and unread messages. For an example, see Get details about a user's thread read state. Requires user authentication with one of the following authorization scopes: - https://www.googleapis.com/auth/chat.users.readstate.readonly - https://www.googleapis.com/auth/chat.users.reads [HTTP GET]. Returns the requested resource as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the paramsmap), or read whole frombody_file`

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	[URL path segment] Required. Resource name of the thread read state to retrieve. Only supports getting read state for the calling user. To refer to the calling user, set one of th
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`lastReadTime`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"Required. Resource name of the thread read state to retrieve. Only supports getting read state for the calling user. To refer to the calling user, set one of th"New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. Resource name of the thread read state to retrieve. Only supports getting read state for the calling user. To refer to the calling user, set one of th"

addedInput schema / properties / name / pattern

Added value: +"^users/[^/]+/spaces/[^/]+/threads/[^/]+/threadReadState$"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "lastReadTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description steps up: it names the HTTP method (GET), the required user authentication, and the exact authorization scopes, which tells the agent this is a safe per-user read. It omits a couple of behavioral facts (only the calling user's state is supported, though the schema covers that) and the trailing boilerplate about `body_file`/request bodies is irrelevant noise for a bodyless GET.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence and use case are well front-loaded, and the auth/scope block is legitimate. However, the trailing wrapper boilerplate about request bodies being built from typed parameters or `body_file` is dead weight on a GET request and slightly muddies the read-only picture.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and auth plus method are disclosed. What remains is minor: no note that only the caller's own read state can be fetched and no sibling differentiation, but an agent could call this correctly from what is given.

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 100% and the `name` parameter's pattern and semantics are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description adds nothing about parameter format or the wildcard/substitution rules for the calling user.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns details about a user's read state within a thread,' plus the practical intent ('identify read and unread messages'). It is distinguishable from the sibling chat.users.spaces.getSpaceReadState by the thread-level scope, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Used to identify read and unread messages' hints at when to reach for it, and the auth scope requirement narrows applicability. But there is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to the space-level counterpart, leaving the choice between the read-state tools to inference.

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

Deploy Server