list all conversations for a specific contact. requires read scope.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "list_contact_conversations"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | contact ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact the annotations do not carry: the read scope requirement. However it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering for what could be a long conversation history.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the auth requirement. No filler, though it is terse enough that a bit more detail could have been added at little cost.
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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage, the essentials are present. What is missing is any indication of result size, ordering, or pagination behavior, which matters for a list operation over a potentially large per-contact history.
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% with a single required 'id' typed as UUID and described as 'contact ID'. The description's phrase 'specific contact' merely restates the schema and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('list all conversations') scoped to 'a specific contact', which distinguishes it in intent from the generic sibling list_conversations. The scope qualifier is the key differentiator, though it never names the sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you have a contact ID and want their conversations rather than all conversations. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer list_conversations over this tool, nor any exclusion or prerequisite beyond the scope note.
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.