star_conversationStar a Canvas Inbox conversation so it appears under your starred scope, affecting only your view. Use the conversation ID from list_conversations.
Star an Inbox conversation so it appears under the "starred" scope. Only affects you. Reverse with unstar_conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversation_id | Yes | Inbox conversation ID (numeric string). Get it from list_conversations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Input schema / properties / conversation_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Canvas ID (numeric string)"New value: +"Inbox conversation ID (numeric string). Get it from list_conversations."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds genuinely new context: the effect is scoped to the caller only ('Only affects you') and the change is reversible via unstar_conversation. It doesn't address repeat-star behavior despite idempotentHint=false, which is the one remaining gap.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scope effect and the reversal path front-loaded before any detail. Nothing can be removed without losing information.
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 single-parameter, reversible, user-scoped mutation with annotated safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and reversal adequately. Only the behavior on an already-starred conversation is unstated, a minor omission.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents conversation_id as a numeric string sourced from list_conversations. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Star an Inbox conversation') plus the observable effect ('appears under the "starred" scope'). It also explicitly names its inverse sibling, unstar_conversation, so the agent can place it precisely among the conversation tools.
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?
Gives the condition for use (to surface a conversation in the starred scope) and names the reversing alternative, unstar_conversation. It doesn't spell out exclusions or note what happens on repeat calls, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.