opencode-mcp

opencode_conversation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the full conversation history of any OpenCode session using its session ID. See every message with role and content to quickly review what was discussed and preserve context across coding tasks.

Instructions

Get the full conversation history of a session, formatted for easy reading. Shows all messages with their roles and content.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max messages to return (default: all)
`directory`	No	Absolute path to the project directory. When provided, the request targets that project. If omitted, the OpenCode server uses its own working directory.
`sessionId`	Yes	Session ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`text`	Yes
`isError`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that output is 'formatted for easy reading' and shows roles/content, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior like limit handling or pagination, and adds only modest context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, direct and front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a straightforward read-only tool with annotations covering safety, a complete output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is sufficient. It clarifies the purpose and output format, and no critical details appear missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (limit, directory, sessionId) are already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or clarification about these parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full conversation history of a session', and specifies that it shows messages with roles and content. This distinguishes it from session metadata tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like opencode_message_list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as opencode_message_list or opencode_session_get. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mentions of alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server