FavCRM

list_conversations

Read-onlyIdempotent

List messaging conversations across WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram, Threads, SMS, email, and other enabled channels. Threads items are public conversations. Shows unread counts and last message time.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (default 1)
`limit`	No	Page size (default 20, max 50)
`search`	No	Search by contact name, phone, or email
`status`	No	Filter by conversation status
`channel`	No	Filter by channel
`assignee`	No	"mine": conversations assigned to you. "unassigned": no assignee. Cannot be combined with assignedToId.
`assignedToId`	No	Only conversations assigned to this company member ID (companyMembers.id)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Tool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
`summary`	Yes	One-line human-readable summary of the action
`renderType`	Yes	UI rendering hint for the result

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / assignedToId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only conversations assigned to this company member ID (companyMembers.id)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / assignee

Added value: +{
+  "description": "\"mine\": conversations assigned to you. \"unassigned\": no assignee. Cannot be combined with assignedToId.",
+  "enum": [
+    "mine",
+    "unassigned"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Previous value: -"Max results (default 20)"New value: +"Page size (default 20, max 50)"

addedInput schema / properties / page

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Page number (default 1)",
+  "type": "number"
+}

First observedJun 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context (Threads entries are public conversations) and what is surfaced (unread counts, last message time), but says nothing about pagination behavior or the scope of the result set.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and no filler. The only slightly soft phrasing is 'and other enabled channels', which adds hedging rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. With 7 optional, fully documented params and only this short description, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only usage context and result-set scope are thin.

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 description coverage is 100% (page, limit, search, status, channel, assignee, assignedToId all documented, with the assignee/assignedToId conflict already noted in the schema). The description's channel enumeration loosely maps to the channel param but adds no syntax, defaults, or combination rules beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (messaging conversations) and enumerates the channels covered, which makes it easy to separate from siblings like list_contacts or get_conversation_messages. It stops short of naming an alternative or an explicit boundary, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The claim that 'Threads items are public conversations' is a data caveat rather than routing guidance, and the agent gets no help deciding between this tool and get_conversation_messages / get_conversation_summary.

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

All FavCRM tools Inspect

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.