sendpulse_get_chat_messagesRetrieve a contact's WhatsApp chat message history from SendPulse, with pagination and ordering options for reviewing past conversations.
Get message history for a contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Number of messages to fetch | |
| skip | No | Messages to skip (pagination) | |
| order | No | Message order | desc |
| account | No | Account name (only one configured: brand_a) | brand_a |
| contact_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations — nothing about ordering defaults, pagination limits, rate limits, or what a missing contact yields. 'Message history' is the only added notion, and it is already implied by the tool name.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 five parameters, no output schema, and a one-line description, the definition is incomplete. Nothing tells the agent the shape of the returned message history, default ordering behavior beyond the schema default, or what happens with an unknown contact_id — information that must come from the description since no output schema exists.
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 80% (size, skip, order, and account are documented in-schema; contact_id is not), which lands at the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so it neither compensates for the undocumented contact_id nor explains how order/skip interact with pagination.
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 and resource ('Get message history') scoped to a contact, which is clear enough to distinguish from write-oriented siblings like sendpulse_send_message. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from sendpulse_list_chats or sendpulse_get_contact, leaving the agent to infer which retrieval endpoint applies.
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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as sendpulse_list_chats or sendpulse_get_contact. The agent must guess whether this is the right tool for retrieving conversation data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.