Retrieve detailed information for a single QQ message by its message ID, including sender, timestamp, and original message segments. Use it to inspect or audit specific messages.
根据 message_id 获取单条消息的详细信息，包括发送者、发送时间、原始消息段等 (OneBot 11: get_msg)。 :param message_id: 目标消息 ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | 目标消息 ID |
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 conveys that this is a read but says nothing about permissions, whether the message may have been deleted/expired, rate limits, or error behavior such as an invalid message_id. For a lone-parameter lookup with no annotation coverage this is thin.
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?
The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and returned fields, and the trailing param line is a minor redundancy. It is compact and largely earns its place, though the param restatement is wasted 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 one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description minimally tells an agent what it gets back (sender, time, raw segments). However, it omits how message_id is obtained (the get_*_history tools) and what happens on a missing/stale ID, leaving real 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 schema already documents message_id as '目标消息 ID'. The description's ':param message_id' line only restates the target message ID and adds no format, scope, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, 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: retrieve detailed info for a single message by message_id, and enumerates the returned fields (sender, time, raw message segments). This clearly distinguishes it from the history-listing siblings like get_group_msg_history and get_recent_messages, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 single-message scope and the required message_id, but the description never states when to prefer this over get_group_msg_history, get_friend_msg_history, or get_forward_msg. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.