Retrieve one message from a RabbitMQ queue for processing; the message is removed or requeued based on the selected acknowledgement mode.
从队列消费一条消息 (消息将被删除)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | 获取消息的数量 (默认: 1，最大: 1) | |
| queue | Yes | 队列名称 | |
| vhost | No | 虚拟主机名称 (默认: /) | / |
| ackmode | No | 确认模式 (ack_requeue_true, ack_requeue_false, reject_requeue_true, reject_requeue_false) | ack_requeue_true |
| encoding | No | 编码方式 (auto, base64) | auto |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the message will be deleted, but omits critical context around ackmode/requeue semantics, permissions, empty-queue behavior, and how the default ack_requeue_true may conflict with the stated deletion.
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?
The description is one front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical effect note; it is efficient and avoids waste. It lacks structural elaboration, but that is not required for conciseness.
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 5-parameter mutation-like consume operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, empty-queue handling, or the impact of ackmode on whether the message is actually deleted.
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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting one message, which aligns with the default count of 1 and maximum of 1.
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+resource: consuming one message from a queue, and adds the destructive effect in parentheses. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like publish_message or list_queues, though it does not name an explicit alternative.
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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as list_queues or publish_message. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.