Retrieve a single chat by its row ID or by platform ID within a channel to access chat details.
One chat by row id, or by platform id within a channel (POST /api/kalagh/chats/get · gRPC GetChat · socket "chats/get")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chatId | No | The chat row id | |
| channelId | No | Required with platformId | |
| platformId | No | The platform's chat id (JID / chat_id); matches the alt id too |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the transport surface (REST path, gRPC method, socket event) and the two-key lookup model, but says nothing about not-found behavior or result shape, so it only modestly exceeds the annotations.
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 sentence front-loads the purpose before the parenthetical transport metadata. Nothing is padded, though the protocol parenthetical is arguably noise for an agent selecting the tool.
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?
A read-only 3-parameter getter with full schema coverage and safety annotations does not need much more, but with no output schema the description should hint at what a chat record contains or what is returned on a miss. As written it is adequate but leaves that gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so the id fields are already documented, including 'Required with platformId' on channelId. The description restates the same relationship ('by row id, or by platform id within a channel') without adding format or fallback semantics, so this is the baseline 3.
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 ('One chat') and resource, plus the two addressing modes (row id, or platform id within a channel). It is distinguishable from chats_list/chats_search in that it fetches a single chat, but it never names a sibling to explicitly frame the contrast.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent is left to infer that this is the single-record getter versus chats_search or chats_list, and there is no note on what to do if the chat is not found.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.