unstar_conversationRemove the star from a Canvas Inbox conversation to stop highlighting it in your inbox. Only your view changes; the conversation itself stays intact.
Remove the star from an Inbox conversation. Only affects you; the conversation itself is unchanged. Reverse with star_conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversation_id | Yes | Inbox conversation ID (numeric string). Get it from list_conversations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.3Input schema / properties / conversation_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Canvas ID (numeric string)"New value: +"Inbox conversation ID (numeric string). Get it from list_conversations."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, non-read-only mutation; the description adds real value by clarifying the blast radius ('Only affects you; the conversation itself is unchanged'), which matters given the openWorldHint. It stops short of saying what the tool returns or what happens if the conversation isn't starred.
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?
Three short sentences, action first, then scope, then the reverse operation — each clause carries information and none is redundant.
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 one-parameter toggle with full annotation and schema coverage, the definition supplies what an agent needs to call it correctly and safely. Only minor gaps remain (return value, no-op behavior when already unstarred).
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 100% and the single parameter already documents its format ('numeric string') and provenance (list_conversations). The description adds nothing 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 ('Remove the star from an Inbox conversation') and explicitly names the inverse sibling star_conversation, so an agent can route between the two without inspecting schemas.
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 phrase 'Reverse with star_conversation' clearly signals the alternative and the symmetrical operation. It gives no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., versus delete_conversation or archive_conversation), but the intent is unambiguous for a trivially scoped toggle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.