Retrieve a scheduled message by its exact ID to view its details, including content and send time, before editing or deleting it.
Get details of a specific scheduled message by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scheduledMessageId | Yes | The exact ID of the scheduled message to retrieve. If unknown, use listScheduledMessages to find it first. (Do not guess) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. 'Get details' implies a read, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only/no side effects, authorization requirements, error behavior, or what the returned details include.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core retrieval purpose is covered. However, it lacks explicit read-only confirmation and does not mention the list_scheduled_messages fallback that an agent may need when the ID is unknown.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself explains the ID parameter thoroughly, including the warning not to guess. The description adds only 'by ID' and no additional syntax, format, or handling details 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('scheduled message') with an ID-scoping condition. It distinguishes retrieval from sibling operations like create/edit/delete/list, but does not explicitly name any sibling tool.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. The only related guidance ('use listScheduledMessages to find it first') appears in the schema, not in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.