Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LibreDesk MCP

LibreDesk MCP

by Passe12345
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_unassigned_conversations

Lists all customer support conversations that are not assigned to any user or team, so you can review and route them to the right agent.

Instructions

Get Unassigned Conversations Get all conversations not assigned to any user and team. Requires the conversations:read_unassigned permission. GET /api/v1/conversations/unassigned 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does add useful context: the required permission scope and the underlying GET endpoint implying a read-only operation. It omits return shape, pagination behavior, and whether the empty result is an empty array versus an error — meaningful gaps for a listing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The scope sentence is front-loaded and clear. Some space is spent restating the title verbatim and on an HTTP-route/tag footer that adds little for an agent, keeping it from a 5, but it remains short and readable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a five-parameter filtered list with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the permission prerequisite. The main missing piece is any hint about result format or pagination semantics, which is minor given the rich schema.

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%, with each of the five query parameters documented including the filter JSON grammar and order_by enum. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 with a precise scope: 'Get all conversations not assigned to any user and team.' An agent can tell this is the unassigned-conversation list. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_team_unassigned_conversations, so it falls 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the scope statement (fetch unassigned conversations) and a prerequisite is disclosed ('Requires the conversations:read_unassigned permission'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_team_unassigned_conversations or get_assigned_conversations, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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