muse_read_chatRetrieve all messages across roles from a Muse chat without sending a new prompt, optionally opening a target chat first by title, index, URL, or ID.
Return the messages of a chat (all roles) without sending anything. Optionally open a chat first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | Max messages to return from the end (default 100). | |
| chat | No | Optional chat to open first (title, index, URL, or id). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not send anything and may optionally open a chat first, but omits authentication requirements, return format, pagination behavior, and any side effects of opening a chat.
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 short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional-open behavior follows immediately.
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 two-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could still note authentication or return structure, but those gaps are minor given the tool's low complexity.
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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the correct baseline.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: return the messages of a chat, all roles, without sending anything. It distinguishes reading from sending, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like muse_read_last or muse_chats.
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?
Implies usage by saying it returns messages without sending anything and can optionally open a chat first. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as muse_open_chat, muse_read_last, or muse_chats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.