Retrieve the signed-in user's recent Teams conversations—chats, meeting chats, and channels—sorted by newest activity. Set a limit to control how many conversations are returned.
List recent conversations (chats, meeting chats, channels) of the signed-in user, newest activity first
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max conversations (default 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully indicates a read-style listing scoped to the signed-in user and ordered by newest activity first, but it does not mention permissions, pagination behavior, or what the returned conversation objects contain.
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?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the resource, scope, included conversation types, and ordering.
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 list operation with one optional, fully documented parameter, the description covers the core purpose, scope, and ordering. It does not describe the return shape, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.
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?
The tool has only one optional parameter, and the schema fully documents it with a default and min/max bounds. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score 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 ("List") and resource ("recent conversations"), and clarifies the resource includes chats, meeting chats, and channels. It distinguishes the scope as the signed-in user and specifies ordering, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?
The description states what the tool lists but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings such as search_messages, list_messages, list_channels, or list_meetings. Any usage context must be inferred from the resource description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.