get_conversation_statusStatus of your conversation, its capability requests and Human Embassy inquiries, and the count of unread human replies.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a partial inventory of returned data and does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, permission constraints, or other behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 a single sentence with little wasted text, but its structure is ambiguous: 'its capability requests and Human Embassy inquiries' could refer to the conversation's contents or separate resources. It is concise but not clearly front-loaded or well-structured.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining return values. It names broad categories of returned data but does not describe status values, capabilities, inquiry states, counts, or response shape, leaving key return semantics incomplete.
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 both conversation_id and conversation_token are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource (your conversation) and lists several things the status covers, including capability requests, Human Embassy inquiries, and unread human replies. However, it never defines what 'status' means and does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings such as read_conversation, list_my_conversations, or get_capability_request_status.
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 explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives like read_conversation or get_capability_request_status. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'your conversation' and the mention of included data.
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.