list_unreadIdentify Slack channels, DMs, and group DMs with unread messages or mentions, and indicate whether their threads contain unread replies.
List channels, DMs, and group DMs with unread messages or mentions, plus whether threads have unreads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max conversations (1–100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-mutating read over potentially broad workspace data. The description adds that results span threads as well as conversations, which is modest extra context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how the 30-item default behaves.
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 front-loaded sentence covering scope and the thread-unread nuance. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description must indicate what comes back, and it does: unread conversations plus thread unread flags. That is adequate for a simple one-parameter list tool, though ordering and result shape are left unstated.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'limit' with its 1-100 range and default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 the right call.
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?
The description gives a specific verb ('List') and a precisely scoped resource: channels, DMs, and group DMs that have unreads or mentions, plus thread-level unread status. That filtering scope distinguishes it implicitly from list_channels. However, it never names a sibling, so differentiation must be inferred.
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?
There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus list_channels, read_messages, read_thread, or search_messages. The use case is implied by the name and the 'unread messages or mentions' framing, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.