conversation_spamMark a conversation as spam or undo the mark when spam is false. Helps manage unwanted support threads in an organization.
Mark a conversation as spam, or undo that with spam=false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spam | No | false marks the conversation as not spam (default true). | |
| conversationId | Yes | The conversation id. | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar for the description is lower. The description usefully discloses the reversibility (spam=false undoes the marking), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, side effects on filters/classifications, or return behavior.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the primary action and appends the undo mode. Nothing is wasted.
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 three-parameter boolean toggle with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. Only minor gaps remain, such as what state the conversation ends in or any downstream side effects.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the default-true behavior of spam. The description restates the spam toggle rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 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?
The description names a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a conversation') plus the exact state being set ('as spam'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like conversation_close, conversation_read, or conversation_update. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.
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?
It clearly covers the two modes of use – mark as spam, or undo by passing spam=false – giving the agent a usable decision rule. No competing sibling is named or excluded, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.