List recent Intercom conversations, set a result limit, and paginate with a cursor to review customer threads for support or follow-up workflows.
List recent Intercom conversations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Conversations to return (max 150, default 20) | |
| access_token | Yes | Intercom access token | |
| starting_after | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'recent' scoping, but does not disclose ordering, pagination direction, or result shape beyond what the schema implies.
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though it leaves room to add a routing hint without becoming verbose.
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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is broadly sufficient. However, 'recent' leaves ordering and pagination semantics ambiguous, which is the main gap an agent would hit when paging results.
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 coverage is 100%, so limit, access_token, and starting_after are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning such as default sort order or cursor direction, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (Intercom conversations) with a scope qualifier (recent). An agent can infer it differs from intercom_get_conversation, but the description never names the sibling to reinforce that.
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?
"List recent" implies a browsing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like intercom_search_contacts, and no note about when to prefer this over fetching a single conversation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.