Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LibreDesk MCP

LibreDesk MCP

by Passe12345
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_all_conversations

Fetch all customer support conversations with pagination, sorting, and filtering to review or manage interactions.

Instructions

Get all Conversations Requires the conversations:read_all permission. GET /api/v1/conversations/all Tags: Conversations

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (defaults to 1) (query parameter)
orderNoSort direction (case-insensitive). Defaults to `desc`. (query parameter)
filtersNoJSON-encoded filter. Either an array of conditions that are AND-ed, e.g. `[{"model":"conversations","field":"status_id","operator":"equals","value":"1"}]`, or a group `{"logic":"AND","rules":[...]}` with at most one level of nested groups. Operators: `equals`, `not equals`, `greater than`, `less than`, `set`, `not set`, `in`, `between`, `contains`, `ilike`, `not contains`. Filterable fields: `conversations` (status_id, priority_id, assigned_team_id, assigned_user_id, inbox_id, last_message_at, last_interaction_at, last_interaction_sender, created_at, waiting_since, next_sla_deadline_at, snoozed_until, sla_policy_id, tags), `conversation_statuses` (id, name), `users` (email, external_user_id), `inboxes` (channel). (query parameter)
order_byNoField to sort by, as `model.field`. Defaults to `conversations.last_message_at`. (query parameter)conversations.last_message_at
page_sizeNoNumber of items per page (defaults to 30, max 500) (query parameter)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful auth context by naming the `conversations:read_all` permission and reveals the underlying GET endpoint, which signals a safe read. But it says nothing about result volume, pagination defaults, or what an unfiltered "all" returns, which is the main risk for this tool.

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?

It is short and the essential line comes first, with permission and endpoint following. The "Tags: Conversations" line is filler that earns no place, but there is no verbose padding to cut.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description should shoulder more weight than it does. It leaves unaddressed the practical question of how to page through or scope an "all" listing, and offers no hint about the shape or size of the response.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents page, order, filters, order_by, and page_size in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb and resource ("Get all Conversations") and adds the backing endpoint, but it is largely a restatement of the tool name with no scope qualifier. It never explains what "all" excludes, nor distinguishes it from the many sibling list tools such as get_assigned_conversations, get_unassigned_conversations, or get_view_conversations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The only usage-relevant signal is the required permission, which gates access but does not help an agent choose between this and the other conversation-listing tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools