get_capability_request_statusReview status, classification and owner notes for your conversation's requests. Never includes internal notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversation_id | Yes | conversation_id returned by start_conversation. | |
| conversation_token | No | conversation_token returned once by start_conversation. Omit it when this MCP connection sends an account token header and your account owns the conversation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / conversation_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"conversation_token returned once by start_conversation."New value: +"conversation_token returned once by start_conversation. Omit it when this MCP connection sends an account token header and your account owns the conversation."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "conversation_id",
- "conversation_token"
-]New value: +[
+ "conversation_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's job is extra context; it delivers a genuine privacy boundary — 'Never includes internal notes' — which an agent cannot derive from structured fields. It still doesn't say whether requests are returned as a list, a single record, or how a pending/classified state manifests.
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?
Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the exclusion clause earns its place as the only non-obvious fact. 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?
With no output schema, the description does sketch the returned content (status, classification, owner notes) plus the privacy limit, which is adequate for a two-parameter read tool. It is slightly thin on how this differs from list_capability_requests and on the cardinality/shape of the result.
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 both conversation_id and conversation_token (including the token-omission rule) are already fully documented. The description only implies conversation scoping and adds no syntax or identity semantics beyond the schema, making 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+resource (review status/classification/owner notes for the conversation's requests) and names the returned fields. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling list_capability_requests or get_conversation_status, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
No when-to-use statement and no alternatives named, despite a crowded sibling set (list_capability_requests, get_conversation_status, get_proposal_history). The only scoping cue is the implicit 'your conversation's requests'.
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.