Check if a chat exists by ID or UUID before sending messages to avoid stale references. Returns true or false based on server lookup.
Pre-flight check: returns whether a chat (by id or uuid) currently exists on the server. Use this before send-message if you may be holding a stale reference. Backed by GET /api/v1/chats/{chatId} — 404 maps to false, 200 maps to true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | Yes | Chat numeric id or uuid. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the backing endpoint and the exact 404→false / 200→true mapping, which is the key behavioral contract an agent needs. It omits auth requirements and any rate-limit or latency notes, keeping it short of a 5.
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 sentences with zero filler; the purpose and the pre-flight framing are front-loaded before the endpoint detail. 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?
For a trivial one-parameter boolean check with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: purpose, when to call, and how responses map to true/false. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 100% and the single chat_id parameter is already documented as 'Chat numeric id or uuid.' The description's '(by id or uuid)' merely restates the schema, adding no new format or edge-case guidance, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (returns whether ... exists) and resource (a chat, by id or uuid), and frames it as a pre-flight check, which distinguishes it from list-chats and get-messages. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly says to call it before `send-message` when holding a stale reference, naming the sibling and the triggering condition. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., after a fresh create-chat) but the usage context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.