List the user's OWN listing-message conversations (threads they started, or received as a listing owner), newest first. Resolved from the authenticated agent key — only ever this user's threads. Use get_conversation to read a thread's messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating results are 'Resolved from the authenticated agent key' and 'only ever this user's threads.' It also adds useful behavior such as 'newest first' ordering. No contradictions exist, and the added context is helpful 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 compact and every sentence contributes value: scope and ordering, authentication-bound behavior, and a pointer to the sibling detail tool. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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, read-only list operation with zero required parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: scope, ordering, authentication context, and the next-step tool for reading message content. No important guidance is missing.
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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain limit or offset. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory and the schema provides types, defaults, ranges, and min/max. The 'newest first' ordering statement gives relevant context for pagination. This is minimally adequate, but the description itself does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's OWN listing-message conversations.' It further clarifies the scope with 'threads they started, or received as a listing owner' and 'only ever this user's threads,' distinguishing it from simply listing all conversations or listings. It also points to get_conversation as the related read tool.
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 provides clear usage context by stating this lists only the authenticated user's own conversation threads, and explicitly directs the agent to use get_conversation for reading a thread's messages. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it relative to other siblings like reply_to_conversation or send_message, but the scoping and sibling pointer give adequate guidance.
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.
Most tools map cleanly to a resource+action pattern, but search_listings vs semantic_search both retrieve listings and send_message vs reply_to_conversation can both append to an existing thread. The descriptions mostly steer the right choice, but the overlaps are real enough to introduce occasional misselection.
The suite overwhelmingly uses snake_case verb_noun names like create_listing, update_listing, list_conversations, and set_listing_status. The main inconsistency is semantic_search, which breaks the verb-first pattern, and a few names like list_my_listings include a possessive, but there is no chaotic mixing of conventions.
At 16 tools, the set sits just above the typical 3-15 sweet spot, but the marketplace domain justifies separate tools for listing management, search, images, entitlements, and messaging. Most tools earn their place, though send_message and reply_to_conversation are somewhat redundant.
The listing lifecycle is well covered: create, read, update, delete, renew, status changes, and image management all exist, supported by two search modes and a complete conversation path. Minor gaps remain, such as no tool to enumerate the supported verticals/roles and limited country-wide browsing outside the career vertical, but agents can work around them.