Retrieve SIP messages for a specific conversation using its conversation ID; supports cursor and page_size pagination for fetching message history.
Get Sip Messages For A Conversation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Used for fetching next page. Cursor is returned in the response. | |
| page_size | No | ||
| conversation_id | Yes | The id of the conversation you're taking the action on. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as whether results are paginated, ordered, or limited to a specific message type.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it is arguably too minimal for a tool with three parameters and multiple sibling getters.
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 large sibling set and the presence of list_sip_messages, the description is incomplete: it does not clarify the selection boundary, return scope, or pagination behavior. Annotations cover safety, but the description leaves key invocation context missing.
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 67%: conversation_id and cursor have schema descriptions, but page_size has none. The description adds no parameter meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented page_size parameter.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Sip Messages For A Conversation'), making the basic operation clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling list_sip_messages or explain the scoping behavior that differentiates the two.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_sip_messages, nor does it mention prerequisites or the pagination-oriented context implied by the cursor parameter. Usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.