Find earlier messages by keywords and return up to a chosen number of matching lines (default 10), so agents can recover prior chat context across sessions and machines.
Find earlier messages by words. Returns up to limit lines (default 10): id+0|kind@folder~hash/agent@machine#session date: text. One chat keeps one #session. Its folder changes when the chat changes directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real substance beyond that. It discloses the return shape (id+0|kind@folder~hash/agent@machine#session date: text), the default limit of 10, and the #session/folder semantics as a chat changes directory.
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?
Three tight sentences, with the core action and the return format front-loaded before the session/folder explanation. The format string is dense but earns its place; nothing is redundant.
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, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden and describes the line format and session identity. What remains thin is search semantics — whether results are ordered by date, how matching works — which matters for an agent composing a query.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents limit usefully (default 10, caps returned lines) but describes query only as "words", leaving matching behavior (token vs substring, AND/OR, phrase) and result ordering unstated.
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?
"Find earlier messages by words" gives a specific verb, resource, and matching mechanism, which separates it from read_message/view/thread without naming them. It never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, so it stops 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?
The phrase "find earlier messages" implies historical lookup rather than reading the current thread, which gives implied direction. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no sibling (read_message, thread, zoom) is named as the alternative path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.