Retrieve the detailed content nodes of a merged forwarded message using its message ID, so AI agents can inspect forwarded chat contents via OneBot 11.
获取合并转发消息的具体内容节点列表 (OneBot 11: get_forward_msg)。 :param message_id: 合并转发 ID (id / message_id)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | 合并转发 ID (id / message_id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that the return is a list of content nodes, but does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether the message_id must originate from an existing forward message, or any failure behavior for invalid IDs.
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?
Very short and front-loaded with the purpose. The trailing ':param message_id' line is a leaked docstring fragment that duplicates the schema, but the overall payload is compact.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives a rough sense of the return (a content node list) but omits behavioral context such as read-only nature and how the message_id is obtained. Adequate but with visible gaps.
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 single parameter is already fully documented in the schema, and the description only restates it. The '(id / message_id)' alias hint adds minor value but no real semantics beyond the schema.
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 (get) and resource (the content nodes of a merged/combined forward message), and names the OneBot 11 action it maps to. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the related send_forward_msg or get_msg siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not say when an agent should call this instead of get_msg, or under what conditions a forward message is involved; the use case is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.