Boardroom Revenue Control

One conversation transcript

agent_get_conversation

Read-onlyIdempotent

One conversation with its transcript — what the customer wrote and what the agent answered. [scope: agent:read]

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of rows to return.
`conversation_id`	Yes	UUID from agent_conversations.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	False when the call was refused or failed; see error.
`error`	No	Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false.
`message`	No	Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id / format
```
Added value: +"uuid"
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Machine-readable refusal code (a string), present only when ok is false."
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable explanation of a refusal (a string)."
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "False when the call was refused or failed; see error.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
```
Added value: +"Maximum number of rows to return."
```
First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the required authorization scope ([scope: agent:read]), but says nothing about pagination or how the transcript is bounded despite the limit parameter.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the resource is described first and the scope tag trails it. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With a full output schema, rich annotations, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to identify the resource and access requirement — both present. Slightly short of complete because it never clarifies its relationship to the listing sibling.

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%, so both conversation_id and limit are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no supplementary meaning about the UUID format or the limit's effect, 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 resource — a single conversation plus its full transcript in both directions — which cleanly separates it from the plural listing sibling agent_conversations. It implies retrieval rather than naming a verb like 'get', but the resource and its content are unmistakable.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The obvious sibling agent_conversations is never referenced, so the agent must infer on its own that this tool is for one conversation given an id rather than for listing.

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

All Boardroom Revenue Control 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.