groove_snooze_conversationSNOOZES a conversation until the given time (ISO8601) — it drops out of the inbox until then. Groove GraphQL: conversationSnooze.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The conversation id (opaque GraphQL ID). | |
| until | Yes | When to un-snooze, as an ISO8601 timestamp (e.g. 2026-08-01T09:00:00Z). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specific behavioral context (drops out of inbox, with ISO8601 timing), going beyond the annotation alone.
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 two concise and front-loaded sentences, with no wasted words.
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 simple action with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, though it could mention that the conversation will reappear after the snooze time.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning the ISO8601 format which is already in the schema.
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 action (snooze), the resource (conversation), and the effect (drops out of inbox), distinguishing it from siblings like close or open.
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 implies the use case (temporarily removing from inbox) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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.