list_chat_messagesLists messages in a chat from a specified starting message ID, in next or previous order with a configurable limit, so agents can retrieve conversation history.
List messages of a chat, starting from start_message_id in the given order (next or prev) with a limit (default 10).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| chat_id | Yes | ||
| start_message_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden: it discloses ordering direction, the start_message_id anchor, and the default limit of 10, which is real behavioral detail. It omits whether limit is capped, whether 'order' rejects other values, what a message object contains, and whether access requires chat membership.
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 dense sentence with the resource first and pagination semantics after, no filler. It could be marginally clearer by separating the required chat scope from the optional paging arguments.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the returned message shape and any failure modes beyond what a bare list call implies. For a read-only paging tool the essentials are present, but the agent has no picture of the response.
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 0%, yet the sentence gives meaning to all four parameters: chat scoping, the start_message_id anchor, order as next/prev, and limit defaulting to 10. It still leaves the allowed values of 'order' and any bounds on 'limit' unstated.
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 and resource ("List messages of a chat") plus the pagination model, which separates it from message-oriented siblings like list_negotiation_messages. It never explicitly names those siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over list_chats or list_negotiation_messages, nor any prerequisite or precondition (e.g., chat membership/auth). Only the pagination mechanics are described, which is how-to rather than when-to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.