Skip to main content
Glama
slidecold-mcp

slidecold-mcp

by slidecold

List conversations

list_conversations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve paginated conversations, most recent first, and filter by search term, status, account, or campaign to review and manage messages.

Instructions

List conversations. Required API key scope: conversations:read. GET /conversations Paginated, most recent message first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_conversations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
limitNo
searchNoSubstring of recipient username (case-insensitive).
statusNoConversation status (case-insensitive) or `all`.
accountIdNoInstagram account id.
campaignIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — the required `conversations:read` scope and the ordering guarantee "most recent message first" — but says nothing about default page size, total counts, or how filters combine.

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?

Four short lines with the key facts front-loaded: action, scope, endpoint, ordering. The opening line duplicates the title, but there is essentially no filler otherwise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With six parameters, half of them undocumented in the schema, and no output schema, the description should explain the filters and what a page of results contains. It instead covers only the endpoint and sort order, leaving filter interactions (search + status + accountId + campaignId) unexplained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates for none of it: page, limit, campaignId, and the `status` "all" convention are never mentioned. "Paginated" only weakly implies page/limit, adding nothing about the filtering semantics an agent needs.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"List conversations" plus the GET /conversations endpoint identifies the verb and resource, but the phrasing largely restates the tool name and title. It does not distinguish this from siblings like get_conversation or refresh_conversations, which an agent must choose between.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to call this versus get_conversation (single item), refresh_conversations (sync), or the per-conversation mutation tools. The only usage context given is the required API key scope, which is a prerequisite rather than a selection cue.

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