Retrieve your Marvin research conversations, newest first, including app threads. Use limit and cursor to page through results.
Your Marvin conversations, most recently updated first, including ones from the app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many to return (1-100). | |
| cursor | No | The next_cursor of a previous call, for the next page. |
| 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. It usefully discloses result ordering and that app-created conversations are included, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, whether results are paginated (only implied by the cursor param), or any limits on history depth.
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?
One short sentence with the resource and its ordering front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant or wasted.
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 two-parameter read with an output schema and full schema coverage, the essentials (resource, ordering, app-inclusion scope) are present. The remaining gap is minimal: no hint about paging behavior or relationship to get_conversation.
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 coverage is 100% — limit's 1-100 range and cursor's next_cursor semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about either parameter, so 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?
Names the specific resource (Marvin conversations) and states the ordering (most recently updated first) plus a scope nuance ('including ones from the app'). The list operation itself is only implied by the name; there is no explicit verb and no direct contrast with get_conversation or ask_marvin, 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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for enumerating conversations while get_conversation fetches a single one, and nothing says whether to page through results or seed from this list before asking a follow-up.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.