missive_get_messageGet a single message, including the full body. Missive: GET /conversations/{conversation_id}/messages/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The message id. | |
| conversation_id | Yes | The conversation id the message belongs to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'full body' adds some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, encoding, or access requirements.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the key action and resource. No redundant information is present.
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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters, the description covers the core action and result. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from clarifying what 'full body' entails (e.g., plain text, HTML). Still, it is mostly complete given the low complexity.
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%, so the schema already explains both parameters (id, conversation_id). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'single message' and adds 'including the full body', which is more specific than just the resource. It clearly distinguishes from list tools that return multiple messages without full bodies.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_conversation_messages. No mention of exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a unique resource-action combination (e.g., missive_get_contact vs missive_list_contacts). There is no overlap in functionality; the purposes are clearly distinct.
All tool names follow a strict 'missive_verb_noun' pattern in lowercase snake_case. Verbs are limited to create, get, list, and update, applied consistently across resources.
With 19 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still reasonable for covering multiple resources like contacts, conversations, messages, and lists. Each tool serves a specific purpose without unnecessary redundancy.
Core workflows are covered: listing, getting, creating contacts/drafts, managing conversations, and viewing sub-items. Minor gaps exist (no update for contacts, no delete for any resource), but these are acceptable for an initial release.