Read pending messages for an agent from the shared bridge, defaulting to the caller's own inbox; optionally filter unread, limit results, or mark returned messages as read.
Read messages waiting for an agent on the bridge. Defaults to the calling agent's own inbox (opencode).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| for | No | Which agent's inbox | |
| limit | No | ||
| mark_read | No | Mark what is returned as read | |
| unread_only | No | Default true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says messages are 'waiting' and the inbox defaults to the caller. It doesn't state whether reading consumes/deletes messages, the ordering, or that mark_read is what mutates read state — a notable gap for a tool with a write-mode parameter.
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 short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the default scope immediately after. Efficient, though very terse given the tool's parameter set.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape, ordering, and read-state side effects. It covers only the inbox default, leaving the agent to guess how the messages come back and what mark_read does.
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 coverage is 75% (limit is undocumented). The description adds real value by explaining the default value of the 'for' parameter (calling agent's own inbox), partially compensating for the uncovered parameter.
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 (read) and resource (messages waiting on the bridge) and clarifies the default scope (calling agent's own inbox). It is distinguishable from bridge_send, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it complements.
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?
Usage is implied (poll for pending messages) and the default inbox removes the need to specify 'for'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus bridge_status or agent_read, and no guidance on polling cadence or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.