Fetch complete details for a specific CRM conversation using its ID, so you can inspect messages, participants, and status without searching manually.
Consulta os detalhes de uma conversa.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversation_id | Yes | ID retornado pelo CRM (UUID ou identificador numérico como texto). |
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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond 'get details' — no statement of what fields are returned, what happens when the conversation_id is unknown, or whether external CRM calls are made — so it contributes almost no behavioral value over the annotations.
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 with no filler. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than true concision given the tool's retrieval semantics.
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?
The tool is simple (one required param, full schema coverage, rich annotations, no output schema), so the minimal description is close to adequate. However, it never clarifies what 'detalhes' comprise or the error behavior for an invalid ID, leaving a modest completeness gap.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the single conversation_id parameter is already documented in the schema including format (UUID or numeric ID as text) and pattern/length constraints. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, 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 ('Consulta') plus resource ('detalhes de uma conversa'), which makes it clearly a single-conversation fetch as opposed to siblings like conversations_list or messages_list. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative tools (conversations_list, messages_list, contact_get) that an agent would need to choose between. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.