Skip to main content
Glama
LibreDesk MCP

LibreDesk MCP

by Passe12345

paginated_search_conversations

Search conversations by reference number or contact email, apply filters, and page through results with a cursor. Exact reference matches appear first, and only accessible conversations are returned.

Instructions

Paginated Search Conversations Matches conversations whose reference number equals the query or whose contact email contains it, with filters and cursor pagination. An exact reference number match is listed first. Returns only conversations the caller can access. Requires the conversations:read permission. GET /api/v1/search/conversations Tags: Search

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNo`newest` and `oldest` sort by last message time. `started_last` and `started_first` sort by creation time. Defaults to `newest`. (query parameter)newest
queryYesSearch query (minimum 3 characters) (query parameter)
cursorNo`next_cursor` from the previous page. A cursor works only with the `sort` it was created with. (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)
page_sizeNoNumber of results per page (defaults to 30). Values above 100 use 100. (query parameter)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it reveals result ranking (exact reference match listed first), access scoping (only conversations the caller can access), and the required permission scope. It still says nothing about result volume limits, rate limiting, or what an empty result looks like.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful information, but the shipped text includes scaffolding that earns nothing for an agent: a repeated title line, the raw 'GET /api/v1/search/conversations' path, and a 'Tags: Search' line.

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?

For a read-only search tool with a fully documented five-parameter schema, the essentials (access scoping, permission, ordering) are covered. With no output schema, though, it could say more about the returned shape and how next_cursor is surfaced to continue paging.

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 operators, sort semantics, cursor rules, and the filter JSON grammar are all already documented in the schema. The description only gestures at 'filters and cursor pagination' without adding meaning beyond that, so 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+resource and adds real matching semantics: exact reference-number match ranked first, otherwise contact-email containment, plus filters and cursor pagination. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as search_conversations or paginated_search_messages, so it misses the top band.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no comparison to the other search tools listed. The permission note ('Requires the conversations:read permission') is a prerequisite, not guidance about which search tool to pick.

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