Check which WeChat sessions have new messages, or verify if a specific session has new messages. Helps identify unread conversations.
检查最近有新消息的会话，或检查指定会话是否有新消息
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| sender_id | No | ||
| text_only | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| message_types | No | ||
| since_minutes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool has two modes (all recent sessions or a specific session), which is useful, but it does not explain what 'new' means relative to since_minutes or how message_types affect results.
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 description is a single concise sentence with no fluff and is front-loaded with the action. However, it is too sparse for a tool with six parameters and no schema descriptions, so the brevity undermines its usefulness.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and the large sibling toolset, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how parameters interact. It does neither, leaving the agent to guess the return shape and filtering behavior.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting the six parameters. It only hints at session_id ('指定会话') and since_minutes ('最近'), leaving limit, sender_id, text_only, and message_types entirely unexplained.
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 clear verb ('检查'/'check') and resource ('会话'/'sessions') with a specific focus: finding sessions with new messages, either across recent sessions or for a specified session. It is distinct in intent from siblings such as list_sessions or search_messages, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by name.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recent_messages or scan_sessions. The description implies the use case by stating the function, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing clues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.