Retrieve queued private-chat messages sent to a QQ bot, with options to limit results and remove or peek at queue items. An empty queue means no new messages are pending.
取出 QQ 用户发给机器人的待处理单聊消息。消息由后台 WebSocket 网关接收并排队，本工具只读取队列。队列为空是正常情况，说明当前没有新消息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 最多取几条，默认 10。 | |
| consume | No | 是否在读取后从队列移除，默认 true。设为 false 只窥视不移除，便于重复查看。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful architecture context (WebSocket gateway queues messages; this tool only reads them) and sets expectations for empty results, but it omits the key side effect documented only in the schema: consume defaults to true, so reads remove messages from the queue by default. Saying '只读取队列' while the default behavior is destructive is a meaningful understatement of impact.
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?
Three short sentences, all front-loaded with the core action first, then the queue mechanics, then the empty-result caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no filler.
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?
For a two-optional-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description conveys where messages come from, what reading means, and why an empty result is expected. It could go slightly further by describing the shape of a returned message or the polling expectation, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.
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 description coverage is 100% (limit and consume are both documented with defaults and behavior), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('取出 QQ 用户发给机器人的待处理单聊消息') and narrows the scope with '本工具只读取队列', which cleanly separates it from the sibling send_private_message. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.
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?
Gives clear operating context: messages arrive via a backend WebSocket gateway and are queued, so this tool is the read path for them. It also warns that an empty queue is normal, preventing the agent from treating an empty result as a failure. It never names an alternative or exclusion explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.