Retrieve a session's full conversation history, formatted for reading, using its session ID; optionally set a limit or target project directory.
Get the full conversation history of a session, formatted for reading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. | |
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says the output is 'formatted for reading'. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it respects a limit/pagination, behavior on invalid sessions, or how large histories are handled.
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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no redundant filler. Its only weakness is brevity that shades into under-specification rather than verbosity.
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 three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 33% schema coverage, the description should do more. It omits the meaning of 'limit', the sessionId requirement, and any return-format or size expectations, so an agent cannot call it confidently relative to its siblings.
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 only 33%: only 'directory' is documented in the schema. The description mentions 'session' (mapping loosely to sessionId) but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or its units/default, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both places.
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 verb 'Get' and resource 'full conversation history of a session' are specific enough to understand the operation, and 'formatted for reading' hints at the rendering. However, it is not distinguished from close siblings like opencode_message_list, opencode_session_get, or opencode_session_summarize, which plausibly overlap in returning session content.
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 use this over opencode_message_list, opencode_session_get, or opencode_session_summarize. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.