Fetch an agent's unconsumed messages in FIFO order, each with id and envelope, without consuming them. Acknowledge via inbox_ack to grant a 60s lease and prevent duplicate processing.
消息总线读(同步, 兼容保留): 列某 agent 未消费(unconsumed)且未被他人租约占用的消息, FIFO 序, 各带 id + 信封(kind/topic/priority)。不消费——读后须 inbox_ack {agent, ids} 确认, 授予/续 60s 租约防并发双处理。实时唤醒用 inbox_wait。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the read does not consume messages, that messages are filtered to those not leased by others, and that a 60s lease is granted or renewed to prevent concurrent double-processing. These are important side effects beyond what the schema shows.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation and scope. Each sentence adds meaningful detail: return contents, FIFO ordering, non-consuming behavior, required ack, lease behavior, and the real-time alternative. There is no wasted text.
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?
Even without an output schema, the description explains what is returned ('id + 信封(kind/topic/priority)'), the single required parameter, the lease side effect, and the necessary follow-up action. For a one-parameter list/read tool, this is sufficiently complete to invoke correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate for the lone 'agent' parameter. It does this by stating that the messages listed belong to a specified agent ('某 agent 未消费'), making the parameter's role clear. It could more explicitly define agent format or ownership semantics, but the meaning is recoverable.
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 uses a specific verb ('列' / lists) and a specific resource ('某 agent 未消费且未被他人租约占用的消息'), while explicitly positioning itself as a non-consuming read. It also distinguishes itself from inbox_ack and inbox_wait, making its role clear relative to siblings.
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?
It states that after reading, the caller must confirm with 'inbox_ack {agent, ids}', and it explicitly says '实时唤醒用 inbox_wait' for real-time wakeup needs. This gives concrete direction on when to use this tool versus the alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.