filter_getRetrieve a saved conversation filter by ID to view its criteria for sorting customer support conversations.
Get one saved conversation filter by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filterId | Yes | The filter id (see filter_list). | |
| 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the filter is 'saved,' which is minor context, and says nothing about error behavior for missing ids or the response shape.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words; the resource and lookup key are stated immediately.
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 simple read-only getter whose annotations and schema (100% coverage) cover the essentials, the description is nearly complete. Only minor gaps remain around failure behavior, and no output schema exists that would need explaining.
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% and both parameters are documented with helpful cross-references (filter_list, organization_list). The description's 'by id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Get') and resource ('saved conversation filter') with scope ('one ... by id'), which distinguishes it from filter_list and filter_create. It does not name the sibling tools explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as filter_list for finding an id. The 'by id' phrasing only weakly implies the tool is for retrieving a known filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.