list_dm_conversationsFetch recent DM conversations for a specified profile on a chosen platform, enabling quick review of direct messages across social networks.
Recent DM conversations for a profile on a given platform.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| platform | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds only a vague 'recent' ordering hint and profile/platform scoping, without clarifying pagination, auth requirements, or filtering behavior.
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?
The description is one short sentence with no fluff and important scoping words appear early. It could be rewritten as a complete imperative sentence, but it is efficient.
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 tool with no parameter descriptions and no enums, the absence of platform values and user identifier semantics leaves an agent guessing about valid inputs. The output schema covers return shape, but calling the tool correctly is under-specified.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'profile' to user and 'platform' to platform, but it does not explain accepted platform values, user identifier format, or limit behavior. This is minimal semantic help.
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 description identifies the resource (DM conversations), the scope (a profile on a platform), and the recency filter. The verb is only present in the title/name ('List'), not the description, so it stops just short of a fully self-contained 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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_dm or the many get_* tools. The name implies a read operation, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.