express_list_chatsList chats and direct conversations visible to the authenticated user. Filter by corporate or personal scope, search by text query, and include left conversations to manage your eXpress message history.
List chats and direct conversations visible to the authenticated eXpress user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| scope | No | corporate | |
| includeLeft | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds the useful scope of 'visible to the authenticated eXpress user' but does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or result shape. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loads the action and resource, and communicates the key authentication scope. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.
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?
While annotations cover the safety profile, the description omits parameter semantics, output expectations, and any relationship to sibling tools. With no output schema and zero schema description coverage, this is insufficiently complete for reliable tool selection and invocation.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters: query, scope, and includeLeft. Since neither the schema nor the description gives semantic meaning for these parameters, an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('chats and direct conversations'), and adds the scoping detail that results are visible to the authenticated eXpress user. It is clear and distinguishable from the send/status siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from express_get_history.
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 this is for retrieving the current user's chats but gives no guidance about when to use express_list_chats versus express_get_history or other siblings. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.