Resume an existing in-memory conversation by providing its ID and a prompt, preserving prior context for the next response.
Continue an existing in-memory conversation session
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Model | |
| prompt | Yes | Prompt | |
| conversation_id | Yes | Conversation id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context by calling the session 'in-memory', which signals ephemeral statefulness and that the conversation must already exist. However, it does not disclose what side effects occur, how invalid conversation IDs are handled, or whether the model defaults to something when omitted.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and key constraint without filler. Every word earns its place, and the essential 'existing' and 'in-memory' qualifiers are packed in efficiently.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action and the main constraint. However, it leaves gaps around how to obtain a valid conversation_id, the relationship to start/list/clear conversation tools, and what the response represents, so it is not fully complete for an unannotated stateful tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the roles of conversation_id and prompt are left to their names and schema descriptions, and 'model' is only vaguely described as 'Model'.
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 uses a specific verb ('Continue') and resource ('existing conversation session'), and the qualifier 'existing' distinguishes it from starting a new conversation. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like coeus_start_conversation and coeus_list_conversations without needing to open the schema.
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 word 'existing' implies the tool should be used after a conversation has been created, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like coeus_start_conversation or coeus_clear_conversation. No prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or explicit routing conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.