missive_list_conversation_postsList posts (integration/app-generated items) on a conversation. Missive: GET /conversations/{id}/posts.
| 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds that posts are integration/app-generated. However, it does not provide additional behavioral insights beyond what the schema and annotations already convey. No contradictions.
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 concise with only two sentences, no unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence is valuable.
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 the tool has no output schema and multiple sibling tools, the description could provide more context about what 'posts' look like or how they differ. It is adequate but leaves room for improvement.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any extra meaning or context for the parameters, so it meets the baseline.
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 posts (integration/app-generated items) on a conversation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_conversation_comments or list_conversation_messages. It specifies the exact resource and scope.
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 when to use it (to get posts from a conversation) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like list_conversation_messages. No exclusions or recommendations 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.
Every tool targets a unique resource-action combination (e.g., missive_get_contact vs missive_list_contacts). There is no overlap in functionality; the purposes are clearly distinct.
All tool names follow a strict 'missive_verb_noun' pattern in lowercase snake_case. Verbs are limited to create, get, list, and update, applied consistently across resources.
With 19 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still reasonable for covering multiple resources like contacts, conversations, messages, and lists. Each tool serves a specific purpose without unnecessary redundancy.
Core workflows are covered: listing, getting, creating contacts/drafts, managing conversations, and viewing sub-items. Minor gaps exist (no update for contacts, no delete for any resource), but these are acceptable for an initial release.