Search messages in a channel by keyword, optionally limiting results to a single chat. Use it to find specific conversations, invoices, or terms across your Kalagh messaging data.
Search a channel’s messages, optionally within one chat (POST /api/kalagh/messages/search · gRPC SearchMessages · socket "messages/search")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| chatId | No | ||
| channelId | Yes |
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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds transport plumbing (REST path, gRPC method, socket event), which is real added context, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or how 'limit' behaves against the default.
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 with the core action front-loaded and transport details relegated to a parenthetical. No filler or repetition, though the transport parenthetical is only marginally useful for selection.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a search returns and how results are bounded, and it does not. With 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is workable for a read-only search but leaves pagination and result-shape questions open.
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% for four parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load and largely does not. It clarifies that chatId is optional ('optionally within one chat'), but 'query' matching semantics and the meaning/default of 'limit' are left entirely undocumented.
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 and resource ('Search a channel's messages') plus a scope qualifier ('optionally within one chat'), which is more informative than the bare name. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as messages_list, messages_history, or chats_search, so an agent cannot tell which search path applies without inspecting schemas.
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?
The verb 'search' implies a query-driven retrieval use case versus the listing tools, and the 'optionally within one chat' clause hints at scoping. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many messages_*/chats_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.