Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Missive MCP

Missive MCP

by kanjidoc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

missive_get_conversation

Read-only

Retrieve a specific conversation by its UUID. Handles merged conversations by returning the current one, with read-only access and limited data for guest participants.

Instructions

Fetches a single conversation by ID (GET /conversations/:id). If the conversation was merged, the current (merged) conversation is returned and its id may differ from the one passed. Read-only. Conversations where you are only a guest return just id and last_activity_at.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "conversation_id": "<conversation_id>"
    },
    "name": "missive_get_conversation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conversation_idYesThe conversation UUID to fetch.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds significant behavioral context: merged conversations return a different id, and guest access returns minimal fields. This helps the agent anticipate edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: core action, merged behavior, guest limitation. No redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Lacks output schema, but description covers key behaviors. However, for a retrieval tool, more detail on the full response structure would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers the parameter fully (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning to 'conversation_id' beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fetches', the resource 'single conversation', and the HTTP method. It explains key behaviors (merged conversation, guest access), making purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like missive_get_message.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the description hints at special cases (merged, guest), it lacks a direct statement of context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools