muse_open_chatOpen a specific Muse chat by title, index, URL, or thread ID so later reads and sends target that thread instead of the main chat.
Open a specific Muse chat so later reads/sends target it (instead of the main chat).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Chat title (substring), index from muse_chats, a thread URL, or a thread id. |
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 full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key stateful effect (opening a chat changes the target for later reads/sends), but it omits other relevant traits such as authentication prerequisites, error behavior when the target is not found, and what the call returns.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and its immediate consequence efficiently, with no redundancy or buried information.
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 simple one-parameter state-setting tool with a rich schema and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it opens and how it affects later operations. It is nearly complete, though it could mention prerequisite state such as login or what happens if the chat is not found.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'target' parameter, including the accepted formats (title substring, index, URL, thread id). The description does not add syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Open') with a specific resource ('Muse chat') and states the resulting scope ('so later reads/sends target it'). It also distinguishes the action from the default behavior by explicitly saying this targets a specific chat instead of the main chat, which differentiates it from sibling operations like muse_chat.
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 gives clear usage context: call this when you want subsequent reads/sends to hit a specific chat rather than the main chat. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state exclusions, but the intended sequencing is clear from the phrase 'so later reads/sends target it.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.