Skip to main content
Glama
second-brain-mcp

second-brain-mcp

by myr0IX

read_exchange

Retrieve the raw conversation surrounding an exchange located via search_history, using its session_id and exchange index to include configurable context before and after.

Instructions

Read the raw conversation around an exchange found by search_history.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "read_exchange"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexYesExchange number from a search_history result
aroundNoExchanges to include before and after
session_idYessession_id from a search_history result

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Raw' hints at unformatted output, but nothing is said about read-only safety, output size, truncation, or cost of expanding the window; the only bound (around max 10) comes from the schema, not the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and the dependency stated in the same clause. It is efficient, though terse enough that the brevity is doing less work than it could.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and input provenance but leaves output shape, size, and safety unstated. Adequate to call correctly, thin for predicting what comes back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so index, around, and session_id are already documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no extra meaning such as how 'around' interacts with session boundaries, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the raw conversation around an exchange'), and explicitly ties the target to a prior search_history result, which separates it from the sibling search tool. It stops short of describing what 'raw' actually contains (messages, tool calls, metadata), so the resource is clear but not fully specified.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'found by search_history' establishes the prerequisite flow: search first, then read around a hit. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative is given, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools