Fetch recent messages from a specified channel in the active mesh, oldest first, to catch up on conversations.
Read recent messages from a channel in the active mesh, oldest
first. channel is a name (with or without '#') or a UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| channel | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering ('oldest first') and that the channel lives in the 'active mesh', but says nothing about read safety, pagination, missing-channel behavior, or result window semantics.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and back-loaded with the parameter format note. No filler. Could better order or flag the limit gap, but it is tight.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described. The channel format note is a real addition, but with 0% schema coverage on the ambiguous limit parameter, the definition is only partly complete for a 2-param tool.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the channel parameter's accepted forms (name with or without '#', or UUID), which is genuinely useful. The limit parameter (default 20) is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 (recent messages from a channel), plus ordering semantics ('oldest first'). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling read_channel/post_channel/read_thread, but the resource is clear enough to distinguish.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like read_thread or search_chat. The agent gets no signal about when reading recent messages is preferable to those siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.