conversation_totalsRetrieve an organization's current conversation totals, such as open and unread counts, to monitor support workload and prioritize responses.
Current conversation totals of an organization (e.g. open and unread counts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the word 'current', implying live/fresh data, but says nothing about aggregation window, rate limits, or what happens for an org with no conversations.
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 efficiently front-loaded sentence that wastes no words, and the parenthetical example is the most informative part. It is slightly too terse to be exemplary, but nothing is padded.
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?
With no output schema, the description bears some responsibility for signalling return values, and it does so only partially via the 'e.g. open and unread counts' example rather than enumerating the actual fields returned. Combined with no differentiation from overlapping sibling statistics tools, it is adequate but incomplete.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains both the meaning and how to obtain the ID via organization_list. The description adds no further parameter context, 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?
States a specific resource (conversation totals) and a clear scope (of an organization), with a concrete example of what the totals contain (open and unread counts). It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-identical siblings like conversation_stats, conversation_metrics, or inbox_statistics, which is the remaining gap.
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 indication of when to call this tool versus conversation_stats, conversation_stats_by_member, or conversation_metrics. Only the schema's parameter note ('Use organization_list to find it') provides any routing guidance, and only for obtaining the ID, not for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.