avito-mcp-ru

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

avito_get_chats

Read-only

Retrieve buyer chats from Avito Messenger with filters for unread messages, listing IDs, and pagination, so sellers can review and respond to inquiries.

Instructions

Buyer chats (GET /messenger/v2/accounts/{user_id}/chats). Requires the Messenger API to be enabled on the seller's Avito plan.

Args: unread_only: only chats with unread messages. item_ids: comma-separated listing ids to filter chats by. limit: page size (<=100). offset: pagination offset (<=1000). Returns JSON: {"ok": true, "data": {"chats": [{"id", "context", "last_message", "users"}]}}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`item_ids`	No
`unread_only`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.3Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by noting the Messenger API requirement and the return JSON shape, which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with an endpoint line, a prerequisite, then Args and Returns. It's informative but not overly verbose; sentences earn their place. Slight reduction could improve flow, but it remains concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover read-only behavior, the description provides the essential usage details (endpoint, requirement, parameters, return shape). It lacks error handling or edge-case notes, but for a read-only list tool it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: unread_only (filter), item_ids (comma-separated listing IDs), limit (page size <=100), offset (pagination <=1000). This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves buyer chats and provides the specific endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like avito_get_orders and avito_get_items by naming the resource (chats) and indicating the Messenger API context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context (buyer chats) and a prerequisite (Messenger API enabled), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it for chat-related tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.