Retrieve chronological dialogue history between two agents using their agent IDs, pulling past messages from SQLite storage. Specify a limit to control how many recent messages are returned.
Query chronological dialogue history between two agents from SQLite storage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of recent dialogue messages to return | |
| agent_a | Yes | First agent ID | |
| agent_b | Yes | Second agent ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Query' strongly implies a read-only operation and 'chronological' adds ordering context, but the description does not explicitly state non-mutation, ordering direction, or how 'limit' interacts with chronological order.
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 sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes: 'Query' indicates the action, 'chronological dialogue history' the resource, 'between two agents' the key parameters, and 'SQLite storage' the backend.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema documents all parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify return format and the ordering/limit behavior. The current text supports selection but leaves some operational detail for the agent to infer.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to the required parameters with 'between two agents', but it adds no meaning beyond the schema for agent_a, agent_b, or limit.
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 identifies the verb ('Query') and the resource ('chronological dialogue history between two agents'), with useful storage context ('SQLite storage'). This distinguishes it from siblings like bus_send or bus_inbox, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.
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 phrase 'dialogue history' implies when the tool should be used—when past messages between a specific pair are needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives like bus_inbox or bus_wait_message.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.