Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Emailchaser

by com.emailchaser
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get lead conversation

get_lead_conversation
Read-only

Returns a lead's full email thread in chronological order: outbound emails (sent, scheduled and unsent drafts) plus inbound replies, each with direction and status. AI reply drafts awaiting review are marked isDraft. Every inbound reply in the thread, with or without an AI draft, can be answered with your own message that uses that reply's id. Use it to read the back-and-forth with one lead before deciding what to do next.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_lead_conversation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe numeric lead ID (returned when the lead was created)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive read, so the bar is lower; the description still earns credit by disclosing the return ordering (chronological), the inclusion of scheduled and unsent drafts, the direction/status fields per message, and the isDraft marker for AI drafts awaiting review. It does not discuss pagination or thread size limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and followed by actionable detail about reply ids. The middle sentence about answering replies is slightly dense but every clause carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does so adequately: message types, ordering, per-message direction/status, and the draft flag. Only secondary details such as volume or pagination are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that id is the numeric lead ID returned at creation. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is not value-add.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Returns a lead's full email thread') and enumerates the contents (outbound sent/scheduled/unsent drafts plus inbound replies). It is clearly distinguishable from a plain lead-record fetch like get_lead, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use it to read the back-and-forth with one lead before deciding what to do next,' and it explains that any inbound reply id can be used to answer with your own message, which routes the agent toward a follow-up action. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative thread-oriented tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Emailchaser toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources