missive_list_conversation_commentsList internal comments (team chat) on a conversation. Missive: GET /conversations/{id}/comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The resource id (a UUID-like string). | |
| limit | No | Max records to return. | |
| until | No | Unix timestamp cursor — return records older than this (offset-less pagination). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that these are internal team-chat comments (not external/client-visible content) and maps to GET /conversations/{id}/comments, but it omits ordering, pagination, or rate-limit behavior for a list endpoint.
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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose plus the disambiguating '(team chat)' qualifier are front-loaded before the endpoint reference.
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 read-only lister with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should have sketched the return shape (author, timestamp, body) or the pagination contract implied by the until cursor. Adequate but leaves real gaps.
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 id, limit, and until are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning (e.g., cursor semantics or default limits) beyond the endpoint path implying the conversation id.
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 (list) and resource (internal comments/team chat on a conversation), and the parenthetical distinguishes the payload from the sibling message/post/draft listers. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 says what the tool returns but never states when to reach for it versus missive_list_conversation_messages, _posts, or _drafts. Usage is only implied by the tool name; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
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.