Retrieve the full content and details of a forwarded message using its ID, enabling further processing or display of the original message data.
Get forward message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | Forward message ID (pass as a string to preserve precision) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation)Skip, any rate limits, or potential errors. The description simply states 'Get forward message' and does not elaborate on what happens if the message_id is invalid, whether it returns the full message content, or any authentication requirements. For a read operation, this is a moderate gap.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple retrieval tool, and the structure is clear.
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?
The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations(migrations). The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple getter, yet it lacks details such as what the return value looks like, how errors are handled, or when to use it over similar tools. Given the complexity is low, the description is barely adequate but not fully complete.
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%, with each parameter described. The description 'Get forward message' does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already explains message_id as 'Forward message ID (pass as a string to preserve precision)'. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional value to the parameters.
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 'Get forward message' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (forward message). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_msg' (which likely gets a general message) by specifying 'forward', making the purpose reasonably clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'get_msg' to disambiguate, but the verb+resource is specific enough for a 4.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving forward messages specifically, nor does it reference siblings like 'get_msg' or 'get_group_msg_history'. With a large sibling list including several message retrieval tools, an agent could benefit from explicit routing, but none is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.