kakao_read_messagesRead recent KakaoTalk messages by chat name substring or chat ID, with optional time filters like 30m, 12h, or 7d to find specific conversations.
Read recent messages. Pass a chat name (substring is fine) or chat id. since accepts 30m, 12h or 7d.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered without description effort. The description adds useful context absent from the annotations, notably that chat names accept substring matching and that since takes relative windows, but says nothing about pagination, truncation, or what a "recent" window actually means.
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?
Three short sentences, each doing distinct work, with the core action and the required argument stated first. No filler or restated title text.
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 should hint at what comes back, but it never says how many messages are returned by default or how result size is controlled. Combined with the undocumented limit parameter and the unexplained meaning of "recent," the definition is usable but not self-sufficient.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains chat (name substring or id) and the since format (30m/12h/7d), matching the schema pattern. The limit parameter, its default of 50 and cap of 500, is completely unmentioned in either place, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.
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?
"Read recent messages" gives a specific verb and resource, and the required chat argument makes the scope concrete. It never names the siblings kakao_list_chats or kakao_search_messages, so the agent must infer that this is the chat-scoped recency reader rather than the search path.
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 only implied: the chat argument and "recent" framing signal reading a specific conversation's latest traffic. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over kakao_search_messages, so the routing decision is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.