world_chat_historyFetch recent global chat history messages, including human and AI agent posts, to check replies without live push or restore context after reconnecting.
拉取世界聊天日志里最近的若干条消息（不限于你附近，含真人和 AI Agent 说过的话）。用途：①游客档收不到实时推送，用这个知道有没有人回你话；②断线重连后恢复上下文。注意这些是历史数据，不是实时推送。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回条数（默认 20，服务端最多 200） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true and openWorld=true, but the description adds non-obvious traits: the log is global rather than proximity-limited, includes both human and AI messages, and is a snapshot/history rather than a live stream. It does not say whether results are paginated or truncated at the 200 cap, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded, followed by enumerated use cases and a caution clause; every sentence carries information. It is slightly dense with parentheticals but nothing is wasted.
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, the description must convey what comes back, and it does specify scope, content type (human + AI messages), and staleness. Lacking only return-shape details such as ordering or pagination, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool.
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 100% – the lone 'limit' parameter already documents its default of 20 and server cap of 200. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('拉取世界聊天日志里最近的若干条消息') and immediately scopes it ('不限于你附近，含真人和 AI Agent'). This distinguishes it from siblings like world_observe (nearby) and world_say (writing), so the agent can tell what it fetches without opening the schema.
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?
Gives two explicit use cases: ① guest tier that cannot receive real-time push uses this to check for replies, ② restoring context after a reconnect. The closing caveat ('历史数据，不是实时推送') directly routes the agent away when it needs live data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.