Retrieve group message history with IDs and structured fields to support pagination and follow-up actions.
Get group message history with IDs and structured OneBot fields for pagination or follow-up actions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Count to retrieve (1-100) | |
| group_id | Yes | Group ID | |
| message_seq | No | Starting message sequence number |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the result contains IDs and OneBot fields, but it says nothing about ordering, default count, behavior when message_seq is omitted, read-only safety, errors, or rate limits. This is too thin for an agent to predict side effects or response behavior.
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 sentence with no wasted words ❤ and front-loads the action. The phrase 'structured OneBot fields' is slightly vague, but it does not bloat the description.
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 Gent and no annotations, the description alone must provide enough context. It lacks details about the return format, default behavior, existing alternative tools, and pagination mechanics. Given the large sibling set and the need to decide between similar message-history tools, this is incomplete.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of 'pagination or follow-up actions' hints at the relationship between count/message_seq and the returned IDs, but it doesn't add concrete semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'group message history', and adds meaningful detail that it returns IDs and structured OneBot fields for pagination or follow-up actions. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'read_group_messages', but the core purpose is immediately understandable.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_group_messages' or 'get_friend_msg_history'. The phrase 'for pagination or follow-up actions' implies a use case, but it doesn't state exclusions or comparison conditions, leaving selection ambiguous among many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.