Fetch messages from a single iMessage chat in oldest-first order using its chat GUID, with an optional limit to control how many messages are returned.
Read one conversation in order, oldest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max messages (default 100). | |
| chatId | Yes | Chat GUID from list_conversations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail — messages are returned oldest first — but omits pagination/truncation behavior and what happens when limit is exceeded.
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?
A single ten-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the ordering constraint. Zero filler; every word 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 simple two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is close to adequate. However, with no output schema, the description could say something about the return shape (message list, ordering, paging), which it does not.
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 both parameters (chatId, limit with a stated default of 100) are already fully documented. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the 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 ('Read') and resource ('one conversation'), plus the ordering guarantee ('oldest first'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_messages or list_conversations, though 'one conversation' implicitly scopes it.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'one conversation' suggests it follows list_conversations, but the description never says when to use this versus search_messages or inbox, nor what the chatId prerequisite implies. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.