bus_peekCheck pending messages for your session without removing them, so you can review queued task handoffs from other AI coding agents before consuming them.
Return pending messages for your session WITHOUT removing them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| me | Yes | Your own session name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It explicitly discloses the key non-destructive behavior ('WITHOUT removing them'), which is critical. However, it does not mention what happens if no messages are pending, or whether it returns a list or single message, but the main safety aspect is covered.
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 a single, direct sentence with no fluff, and the key behavior (without removing) is front-loaded. It earns its place entirely, making it concise and structured effectively.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It addresses the primary concern (non-destructive) and identifies the session parameter. However, it could briefly mention the return format or behavior on empty, but not critical at this complexity level.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'me', explaining it as 'Your own session name'. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states that the tool returns pending messages without removing them, identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like bus_receive or bus_read_broadcasts, so the agent may not know which sibling to use for different scenarios.
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 implies a use case: when you want to inspect messages without consuming them. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which sibling to use for actually consuming messages, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.