Extract a person's messages across multiple sessions by exact sender ID, with optional context. Confirms identity via contacts, not nickname matching.
按准确发送者ID提取某人或指定几人在多个会话中的发言，可补前后语境。先通过联系人或发言人列表确认身份，不以昵称模糊匹配代替。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offsets | No | ||
| end_time | No | ||
| keywords | No | ||
| match_mode | No | ||
| sender_ids | Yes | ||
| start_time | No | ||
| session_ids | Yes | ||
| context_after | No | ||
| context_before | No | ||
| per_session_limit | 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, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that neighboring context can be padded in (补前后语境) and that identity must be exact, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about result limits, ordering, or output shape.
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?
Two dense sentences: purpose and scope first, then the identity-verification precondition. Little waste, though it could be slightly tighter.
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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin: it omits time filtering, keyword matching, session offsets, and pagination limits, leaving an agent unable to use most of the parameters correctly.
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% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only clarifies sender_ids (exact sender ID) and implicitly context_before/context_after (补前后语境); session_ids, start_time, end_time, keywords, match_mode, offsets, and per_session_limit are all left 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 specific verb+resource (提取…发言, extract messages of a person) with scope (multiple sessions) and mechanism (by exact sender ID, with optional surrounding context). It is clearly a target-person extraction tool, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from the close sibling get_messages_by_sender.
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?
It gives concrete workflow guidance: first confirm identity via the contact list or sender list, and do not substitute fuzzy nickname matching. This is a real precondition (routing to list_contacts / list_session_senders). However, it stops short of naming the alternative extraction/search siblings and when to prefer them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.