Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Slack MCP

Slack MCP

by korotovsky
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

conversations_history

Retrieve Slack channel messages using channel_id, with pagination support via cursor. Fetch messages within specified time limits or message counts, streamlining conversation history management.

Instructions

Get messages from the channel by channel_id, the last row/column in the response is used as 'cursor' parameter for pagination if not empty

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": {
      "channel_id": "<channel_id>"
    },
    "name": "conversations_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channel_idYesID of the channel in format Cxxxxxxxxxx
cursorNoCursor for pagination. Use the value of the last row and column in the response as next_cursor field returned from the previous request.
limitNoLimit of messages to fetch in format of maximum ranges of time (e.g. 1d - 1 day, 30d - 30 days, 90d - 90 days which is a default limit for free tier history) or number of messages (e.g. 50). Must be empty when 'cursor' is provided.1d

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes pagination behavior and the interaction between 'cursor' and 'limit' parameters, which adds useful context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the response format looks like (e.g., structure of returned messages). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding its full behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and key behavioral detail (pagination). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the pagination explanation into a second sentence for clarity, but overall it's concise and to the point.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and pagination behavior but lacks details on response format, error conditions, or broader usage context. Without an output schema, the description doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., message structure), which is a significant gap. It's adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for full agent usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by explaining how pagination works with the cursor and the constraint that 'limit' must be empty when 'cursor' is provided, which clarifies parameter interactions. However, it doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions, such as examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get messages from the channel by channel_id'. It specifies the resource (messages) and the required parameter (channel_id), making the verb+resource combination explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'channels_list', which appears to list channels rather than messages, so the differentiation is implied but not explicit.

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 some usage guidance by explaining pagination with the cursor parameter and noting that 'limit' must be empty when 'cursor' is provided. This gives context for when to use certain parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'channels_list' or other hypothetical tools, nor does it provide broader context on when this tool is appropriate versus other methods for retrieving messages.

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

Related Tools