Retrieve a full SMS conversation thread between your DID and a counterparty number, with pagination support for reviewing message history.
Read one conversation thread between a DID and counterparty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | Yes | SMS DID number | |
| limit | No | Page size | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor | |
| counterparty | Yes | Counterparty phone number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It says 'Read' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior (though parameters include cursor and limit) or any other side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema, but 'Read' is at least a clear verb.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and key identifiers. No wasted words; it is efficient and to the point.
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 (read a conversation) and full param coverage, the description is adequate. However, without an output schema or behavioral notes (e.g., what constitutes a conversation), an agent might wonder about the response format. Since no output schema exists, the description could have been more explicit about return values, but it's not a major gap for a simple read.
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 schema documents all parameters. The description doesn't add additional meaning beyond what's in the schema; it only mentions 'DID' and 'counterparty' as identifiers. Given full coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but it could have enhanced by noting that these form a composite key.
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 it reads a single conversation thread identified by a DID and counterparty, distinguishing it from list_conversations which lists multiple conversations. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling for contrast, but the verb and resource are specific.
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 usage when a specific conversation is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use list_conversations instead. Since siblings include list_conversations, the lack of explicit routing is a minor gap, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.