Lists recent Google Voice SMS conversations with contact, snippet, timestamp, and read status, with optional unread filtering and result limits.
List recent SMS conversations from Google Voice. Returns conversation ID, contact, last message snippet, timestamp, and read/unread status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of conversations to return. Default: 20. | |
| filter | No | Filter conversations: "all" or "unread" only. Default: "all". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields, which is useful, but says nothing about authentication prerequisites, ordering/recency definition, pagination beyond the limit, or whether the call has side effects (e.g., does listing mark anything read?).
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the return shape. No filler or redundancy.
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-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields covers the main gap. However, the presence of gv_login/gv_check_login siblings implies an auth prerequisite that the description never mentions, leaving a real operational gap.
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 100%, with both limit and filter fully documented including the enum values and defaults, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 recent SMS conversations from Google Voice") plus the returned fields, so an agent knows this is the conversation-level listing tool rather than a message-body reader. It never names gv_read_sms or the other siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: "list recent conversations" plus "last message snippet" signals this is for scanning the inbox, not reading full threads. There is no explicit when-to-use, no routing to gv_read_sms for full content, and no mention that a prior gv_login/gv_check_login may be required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.