supovia

Get conversation activity

get_conversation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarize one organization-owned Supovia conversation using safe status fields and sender-category counts from at most 50 recent records. No message body, preview, message id, customer identifier, staff id, internal note, organization id, or arbitrary metadata is returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`conversationId`	Yes	Conversation id

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`conversation`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond this by disclosing the 50-record cap and the exact fields excluded (message body, preview, message id, etc.), giving the agent a precise, honest behavioral contract. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed immediately by exclusions. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, limit, safe fields, and exclusions for a simple one-parameter read tool, leaving nothing essential missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the only parameter (conversationId), with a basic description 'Conversation id'. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states a specific verb ('summarize'), resource ('one organization-owned Supovia conversation'), and scope ('safe status fields and sender-category counts'). It also explicitly lists what is NOT returned, distinguishing it from more detailed conversation tools like open_customer_inbox_conversation or get_document.

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?

The description provides context (safe summary from at most 50 recent records) and implicitly routes away from use cases needing sensitive fields by listing exclusions. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but the exclusion list effectively tells an agent when NOT to use this tool.

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

All supovia tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: retrieving single resources (get_conversation, get_document, get_website), listing sets (list_*), searching (search_documents), mutating state (resolve_conversation, send_message), and rendering views (show_customer_inbox, show_support_overview). Even the two inbox-related tools are clearly separated: one opens and counts, the other refreshes a specific conversation. No two tools could be easily confused.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear verbs: get, list, search, open, resolve, send, show. The naming is uniform across the set, with no mixed conventions (e.g., camelCase or vague verbs like 'process'). The pattern makes it predictable for an agent to infer tool purposes.

Tool Count5/5

With 14 tools, the server is well-scoped for a customer support/support-documentation domain. Each tool covers a distinct responsibility without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal 3–15 range. There is no bloat or triviality.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core workflows: listing and retrieving conversations, resolving or sending messages, reading and searching documents, and listing websites/campaigns. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no document update/delete, no campaign creation/send), but these appear intentionally read-only for safety and the main support operations are well covered.

Resources

Need Help?