Retrieve a specific console message by its ID from a targeted page, using list_console_messages to locate the ID.
Gets a console message by its ID. You can get all messages by calling list_console_messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| msgid | Yes | The msgid of a console message on the page from the listed console messages | |
| pageId | Yes | Targets a specific page by ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic fetch action; it doesn't mention return format or error behavior, but for a simple read-only lookup this is acceptable.
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?
Two efficient sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the pointer to the sibling tool earns its place by helping the agent choose correctly.
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 simple read-only fetch tool, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, explains the selection mechanism, names the related list operation, and is backed by fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation. No critical information is missing.
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 both pageId and msgid are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that lookup is by message ID but does not add meaningful semantic details beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Gets'), a concrete resource ('console message'), and a precise selection mechanism ('by its ID'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from list_console_messages, which retrieves all messages.
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 explicitly names the alternative tool for fetching all messages and implies that this tool is for fetching a single message once its ID is known. It could be stronger by stating the prerequisite workflow (call list_console_messages first), but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.