Retrieve a conversation's questions and answers in chronological order by conversation ID, with limit and cursor for pagination.
A conversation's questions and answers, oldest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many turns to return (1-100). | |
| cursor | No | The next_cursor of a previous call, for the next page. | |
| conversation_id | Yes | From list_conversations or an earlier answer. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only ordering (oldest first). It says nothing about pagination behavior despite cursor/limit parameters, nothing about permissions or scoping, and nothing about whether the conversation must exist or what happens with an invalid id.
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?
It is a single short fragment with zero wasted words, which is efficient, but the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than crisp front-loading. There is no structure to separate purpose from behavior because there is essentially only one clause.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is simple with three well-documented parameters. However, with no annotations and a one-line description, the agent still lacks guidance on when to call this versus its siblings and how paging behaves in practice.
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 the schema itself explains limit, cursor, and that conversation_id comes from list_conversations or an earlier answer. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?
The fragment 'A conversation's questions and answers' identifies the resource and implies a read, but there is no verb and no explicit differentiation from siblings like get_response or list_conversations. An agent can guess it returns transcript turns, but must infer that from the noun phrase rather than a stated action.
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 when-to-use guidance at all: it does not say when this is preferable to list_conversations (discovery) or get_response (a single answer). The only usage-adjacent detail is 'oldest first', which describes ordering, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.