Missive MCP

missive_list_conversation_posts

Read-only

Retrieve posts from a Missive conversation in reverse chronological order, with pagination using the oldest post's timestamp.

Instructions

Lists posts in a conversation (GET /conversations/:id/posts), newest first. Paginate with until = created_at of the oldest post from the previous page. Read-only.

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_list_conversation_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of posts to return. Default 10, max 10.
`until`	No	Unix timestamp: the `created_at` of the oldest post from the previous page.
`conversation_id`	Yes	The conversation UUID to list posts from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotation already indicates read-only, and the description adds pagination behavior ('Paginate with `until` = `created_at` of the oldest post from the previous page'). No contradictions; additional context beyond annotation is provided.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides pagination detail. Front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the lack of output schema, the description is adequate for a list tool. However, it does not mention the structure of the returned posts (e.g., whether full objects or IDs), which could be inferred from sibling tools. Minor gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds semantic meaning to the `until` parameter by explaining its role in pagination, which is not fully captured in the schema description alone.

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 it lists posts in a conversation, specifies ordering (newest first), and provides the HTTP endpoint. This differentiates it from siblings like missive_list_conversation_comments and missive_list_conversation_messages by targeting 'posts' specifically.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides pagination instructions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use missive_list_conversation_messages instead). Usage is implied but lacks exclusion guidance.

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

Deploy Server