list_conversationsRetrieve inbox messages and conversations for the authenticated Canvas user. Access and manage Canvas LMS messages directly from an AI agent.
List conversations (inbox messages) for the authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.11Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation that may return an open-ended set of results. The description adds the 'authenticated user' scoping, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose any pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior, which would be relevant for a list tool. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the domain term. Zero waste. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter list tool with readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is that it doesn't mention pagination or any default limits, which is common for list endpoints. Also, it doesn't clarify what fields each conversation object contains, but with no output schema, the description could have added a bit more context. Still, for a simple list operation, this is adequate.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters because there are none. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List conversations (inbox messages) for the authenticated user.' It clearly identifies the resource as conversations/inbox messages and scopes it to the authenticated user. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_conversation or get_conversation_unread_count, but the plural 'list' plus the parenthetical 'inbox messages' makes the purpose reasonably clear.
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 description implies usage: it lists conversations for the authenticated user, which suggests it's the tool to call when you need a list of the user's inbox messages. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus get_conversation (for a single conversation) or get_conversation_unread_count (for unread count). The context is clear enough for a simple list tool, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.