pro_conversationsTheir professional inbox (recruiters, companies, their network), never private chats. No conversationId: the list. With one: its messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversationId | No | A pro_… id from the list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "conversation": {
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "closed": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "conversationId": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "messages": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "body": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "createdAt": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "deleted": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "from": {
- "enum": [
- "me",
- "them"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- },
- "id": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "writtenBy": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "from",
- "body",
- "writtenBy",
- "createdAt"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "note": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "with": {
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "handle": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "headline": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "name",
- "handle",
- "headline"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "conversationId",
- "with",
- "closed",
- "note",
- "messages"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "conversations": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "closed": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "conversationId": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "lastFromMe": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "lastMessageAt": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "lastPreview": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "note": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "startedByMe": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "unread": {
- "type": "number"
- },
- "with": {
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "handle": {
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "headline": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "name",
- "handle",
- "headline"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "conversationId",
- "with",
- "lastMessageAt",
- "lastPreview",
- "lastFromMe",
- "unread",
- "closed",
- "startedByMe",
- "note"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "drafts": {
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "drafts"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful scope and conditional behavior, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or auth details.
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 extremely compact and front-loads scope before the parameter behavior. Both sentences carry distinct, necessary information with no filler.
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 low-complexity, read-only tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description covers scope and parameter behavior adequately. Return values are not explained, but the phrases 'the list' and 'its messages' imply the shape sufficiently for this tool.
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%, so the parameter itself is documented. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by stating that omitting conversationId returns the list and providing one returns that conversation's messages.
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 specifies the exact resource and scope: the professional inbox containing recruiters, companies, and network contacts, explicitly excluding private chats. It also distinguishes the two behaviors: without conversationId it returns the list, and with one it returns that conversation's messages.
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?
It gives a clear exclusion ('never private chats') and explains the conditional parameter usage. It does not name a specific alternative sibling tool for private chats, but the context is strong enough for an agent to choose correctly.
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.