@instantreply/mcp

list_messages

Read-only

Fetches messages from a conversation, ordered newest first, enabling agents to read chat history or analyze recent interactions.

Instructions

List messages in a conversation. Returns most recent first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "conversation_id": "<conversation_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`conversation_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful ordering trait ('most recent first'), but omits pagination behaviour despite a cursor parameter, and says nothing about result limits or truncation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and the ordering trait front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paginated list tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain cursor/limit semantics and what the returned items contain. Instead it supplies only purpose and ordering, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters (conversation_id, limit, cursor), so the description must carry the load and it does not: limit's default/max, cursor's purpose, and conversation_id's expected format are all unexplained. Only the implicit ordering hints at how cursor works.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List messages in a conversation'), and the ordering note ('most recent first') adds a distinguishing scope detail. It does not name or contrast with siblings like list_conversations or get_conversation, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and description but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as list_conversations (to find conversations) or get_conversation (for conversation metadata). Nothing is misleading, but the agent must infer the context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.