View a thread's metadata and latest messages in newest-first order, with pagination to access older turns and clear markers when content is truncated.
Read metadata and one newest-first turn page, without resuming; truncation is marked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| thread_id | Yes | ||
| max_text_chars | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: exactly one page, newest-first ordering, no resumption, and explicit truncation marking.
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 dense sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then packs in ordering, paging behavior, resumption behavior, and truncation handling without filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the core behavior well. However, the meaning of cursor and the exact relationship between 'without resuming' and pagination are left ambiguous, which is a noticeable gap for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.
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 0% and the description never names thread_id, limit, cursor, or max_text_chars. Phrases like 'turn page' and 'truncation is marked' weakly imply pagination and character limits, but the agent is left to infer the exact parameter roles from titles and defaults.
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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('metadata and one newest-first turn page'), and the 'without resuming' clause separates it from wait/resume-style siblings while 'Read' contrasts with create/send tools. It is compact but unambiguous.
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 gives a clear sense of scope ('one newest-first turn page, without resuming') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_threads, wait_thread, or send_message_to_thread, nor does it name alternatives. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.