Retrieve the contents of a merged forward message by supplying either its id or message_id. Read-only, useful for inspecting forwarded message history.
取合并转发中的内容；id 或 message_id 传一个即可。只读。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | 转发消息的 id（字符串形态） | |
| message_id | No | 转发消息的 message_id（字符串形态） |
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 burden. It does disclose the behavioral trait ''只读'' (read-only), which is meaningful context, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, error behavior when neither id is given, or the shape of returned content.
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 compact clauses with the purpose front-loaded, the parameter rule second, and the read-only note last. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
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 and no annotations, the description should say more about what is returned (the merged forward content structure) and what happens when neither identifier is provided. It covers purpose, parameter alternation, and read-only status, but leaves the return behavior unspecified.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by clarifying that either id or message_id may be supplied (an either/or acceptance rule the schema does not state). It stops short of explaining what each identifier represents when they differ.
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+resource (取合并转发中的内容 – retrieve content from a merged forward message), which clearly separates it from get_msg for ordinary messages. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction between forward-message content and regular message content.
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 useful in-tool guidance (''id 或 message_id 传一个即可'' – pass either one), but offers no explicit when-to-use vs the closest sibling get_msg, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.