ponisha-mcp

ponisha_get_conversation_info

Read-only

Retrieve conversation details—participants, chat availability, and project—by bid ID, including locating the conversation tied to a bid from a conversation list.

Instructions

Get details about a conversation (participants, can_chat, project). Pass the bid_id from ponisha_list_conversations; you can also use it to find the conversation for a bid.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bid_id": "<bid_id>"
    },
    "name": "ponisha_get_conversation_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bid_id`	Yes
`conversation_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declare the safety profile, so the description only needs to fill gaps. It adds the returned fields, but says nothing about what happens when a bid has no conversation, whether it creates one, or auth requirements — meaningful for an open-world read that can fail on missing resources.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and results before the sourcing hint. The closing clause "you can also use it to find the conversation for a bid" restates the first sentence's premise rather than adding new information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, mentioning participants/can_chat/project is genuinely useful. However, the ungrounded conversation_id parameter and the silence on the no-conversation case leave the definition short of what a two-parameter lookup tool needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains bid_id's origin and an alternate use case (locating a conversation for a bid), but conversation_id is never mentioned despite being an accepted parameter — an agent cannot tell when or whether to supply it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get details about a conversation") and enumerates the payload (participants, can_chat, project), which is more than the name alone conveys. It never contrasts itself with the messaging sibling (ponisha_get_messages), so full sibling differentiation is absent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete entry conditions: obtain bid_id from ponisha_list_conversations, and notes the lookup-by-bid use case. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it, e.g. that message bodies live in ponisha_get_messages rather than here.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server