get_conversationsList recent chatbot conversations with filtering by lead quality, intent signal, and date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| client | No | Agency only: target a managed client org by its id to query that client's data. Omit for your own. | |
| lead_quality | No | ||
| intent_signal | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / clientAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Agency only: target a managed client org by its id to query that client's data. Omit for your own.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description consistently says 'List', so no contradiction. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond mentioning filtering capabilities, which are already visible in the schema. No information on pagination, rate limits, or results structure.
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?
One sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the action. It earns its place but with no extra waste.
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?
Given there are 5 parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in all cases. It omits the client parameter, pagination, and result format.
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 only 20%; only 'client' has a description. The description mentions filtering by lead quality, intent signal, and date range, corresponding to lead_quality, intent_signal, and days, but provides no detail on accepted values (enums), limits, or the agency-specific client parameter. It doesn't compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 the tool lists recent chatbot conversations and supports filtering by lead quality, intent signal, and date range. The verb 'List' and resource 'chatbot conversations' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_conversation_detail or search_by_intent.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_hot_leads or search_by_intent. There are no exclusions or contextual hints, so the agent is left to infer usage.
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 are clearly distinct, but get_conversations and search_by_intent both return conversations, and get_hot_leads vs get_lead_enrichment have some overlap. Descriptions clarify their specific purposes, so ambiguity is minimal.
The majority of tools follow the get_* pattern, but search_by_intent deviates. Otherwise, naming is consistent and readable.
With 8 tools, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool focuses on a distinct aspect of buyer intent, from summaries to specific searches, without unnecessary bloat.
The server covers core needs: overview, listing, detail, enrichment, MEDDIC summary, knowledge gaps, and search. Missing are non-read operations and a general lead list (only hot leads), but these are minor gaps for an analytics-focused server.