Read a complete ENT message, including its text body, recipients, and attachments; the platform then marks it as read.
Lit un message complet (corps en texte, destinataires, pièces jointes). L'ENT le marque alors comme lu.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identifiant du message. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a non-obvious side effect that the annotations alone only signal indirectly: it marks the message as read, which explains readOnlyHint=false. This is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields, though it does not clarify reversibility or whether the read state can be reset.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the side effect. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully lists the delivered content and the read-marking behavior, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It could still note failure cases (invalid id) but the essentials are covered.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the full meaning of 'id'. The description adds no format, valid-range, or sourcing detail for the identifier, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lit un message complet') and enumerates the returned content (corps, destinataires, pièces jointes), which distinguishes it from listing tools like messagerie_lister. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb: read a specific message by id. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites relative to siblings such as messagerie_marquer or messagerie_lister.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.