Claude Dialogue MCP

Create Dialogue Thread

dialogue_create_thread

Create a new conversation thread in a project for asynchronous dialogue between Claude.ai and Claude Code. Specify project ID, title, initiator, and optional tags.

Instructions

Start a new conversation thread within a project.

Threads are named conversations between Claude.ai and Claude Code. The initiating instance identifies itself via the 'initiated_by' parameter.

Args:

project_id (string): The project to create the thread in
title (string): Descriptive thread title
initiated_by (string): "claude_app" or "claude_code" — who is starting this thread
tags (string, optional): Comma-separated tags for categorization and search

Returns: The created thread object with generated ID and timestamps.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "initiated_by": "<initiated_by>"
    },
    "name": "dialogue_create_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Comma-separated tags for categorization
`title`	Yes	Descriptive thread title
`project_id`	Yes	The project ID
`initiated_by`	Yes	Which Claude instance is speaking. claude_app = Claude.ai (musings, theory, design). claude_code = Claude Code (implementation, building, debugging).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are all false, giving no safety hints. The description adds context about the initiated_by parameter and the return value, but it does not disclose potential errors, prerequisites, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but the behavioral disclosure is limited.

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?

The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections and front-loads the main purpose. It is slightly verbose due to redundancy with the schema, but every sentence contributes to understanding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the Returns section is helpful. The description explains what threads are and covers required parameters. However, it omits potential error cases or prerequisites like the project existing, leaving some gaps for a create tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema provides detailed parameter descriptions, especially for initiated_by. The description's Args section mostly repeats schema information without adding significant meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Start a new conversation thread within a project,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like dialogue_create_project and dialogue_post_message.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides context about threads as named conversations between Claude.ai and Claude Code, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server