list_conversationsRetrieve paginated human-agent inbox conversations, filtered by Instagram account or unread status, to help manage and reply to DMs. Requires an inbox-enabled plan.
List human-agent inbox conversations (paginated). Filters: igAccountId, unreadOnly. Requires a plan that includes the human-agent inbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| unreadOnly | No | ||
| igAccountId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are paginated and that a plan entitlement gates access, but says nothing about ordering, page size behavior, or what a cursor represents.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Efficient overall, though the parenthetical '(paginated)' could have carried the cursor/limit detail it hints at.
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?
With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should do more than name two filters. It covers the entitlement prerequisite and pagination existence but leaves the agent guessing about limit bounds and cursor semantics.
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 carries the full burden and only names two of four parameters (igAccountId, unreadOnly). The limit parameter's 50-item cap and the opaque cursor string are left completely undefined in both description and schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List human-agent inbox conversations') with scoping detail that separates it from a raw message log. It does not, however, name or contrast with the nearest sibling (list_dm_logs), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
The only usage-shaped content is the prerequisite that the plan must include the human-agent inbox. There is no guidance on when to choose this over list_dm_logs or when to reach for reply_to_conversation after listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.