Show one message with the messages around it and its edit history.
Show one message with the messages around it and its edit history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) | |
| room | No | roomId or index from huddo_list, for this call only (default: the default room) | |
| msgid | Yes | Message id (msg_...) | |
| context | No | Messages before and after it (default 3, max 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail that the schema does not carry — that surrounding messages and edit history are included in the result — but says nothing about what happens when msgid is missing, permissions, or result shape/pagination.
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 zero filler, front-loaded on the verb and resource, and the defining scope detail arrives immediately after.
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?
For a read-only 4-parameter tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and even sketches the return contents (surrounding messages, edit history). It leaves error behavior for an unknown msgid and any room/identity resolution notes unaddressed, so it is strong but not 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%, so the schema already documents 'as', 'room', 'msgid', and 'context' including defaults and the max of 50. The description's phrase 'the messages around it' loosely maps to the 'context' parameter but adds no syntax, units, or edge-case behavior beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Show one message') plus the scope of what comes back ('messages around it and its edit history'), which distinguishes it from huddo_read/huddo_list in practice. It never names a sibling or states what it is not, so it falls short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of huddo_read, huddo_search, or huddo_list as alternatives. The agent must infer from the required 'msgid' parameter that this is the message-centric lookup, which is implied usage rather than stated guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.