avito_get_chat_historyRead message history in an active Avito chat to check seller responses and review prior messages.
Read message history in an active Avito chat to check seller responses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max messages to return | |
| chat_url | No | URL of the specific chat or empty for active chat |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 clarifies that this is a read operation, but it does not disclose message ordering, pagination behavior, what happens when no active chat exists, authentication requirements, or what the returned payload contains.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content.
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 a fully described schema, the description is adequate but thin. Because there is no output schema, it should do more to indicate what the returned message history looks like or how limits affect it.
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 explains limit and chat_url. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond implying the active-chat default, which the schema also states.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Read message history in an active Avito chat.' It is distinct from siblings like avito_send_message and avito_list_chats, though it does not explicitly name them and 'active chat' slightly conflicts with the chat_url parameter that can point to a specific 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 phrase 'to check seller responses' implies the use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.