Fetch full conversation details and messages from Canvas by conversation ID, with optional auto-mark-as-read.
Get detailed conversation information with messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| auto_mark_read | No | Mark as read when viewed | |
| conversation_id | Yes | Conversation ID | |
| include_messages | No | Include all messages |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / auto_mark_read / descriptionAdded value: +"Mark as read when viewed"Input schema / properties / auto_mark_read / titleRemoved value: -"Auto Mark Read"Input schema / properties / conversation_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Conversation ID"Input schema / properties / conversation_id / titleRemoved value: -"Conversation Id"Input schema / properties / include_messages / descriptionAdded value: +"Include all messages"Input schema / properties / include_messages / titleRemoved value: -"Include Messages"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_conversation_detailsArguments"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"get_conversation_detailsDictOutput"v1.0.0Input schema / titleAdded value: +"get_conversation_detailsArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description matches readOnlyHint annotation (both indicate read operation). However, it doesn't disclose that auto_mark_read defaults to true, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotation. Since annotation covers safety and output schema covers return, this is adequate but not enhanced.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and object, no redundant details.
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 the simple read operation, the schema covers parameters, annotations cover safety, and output schema covers returns. The description is terse but sufficient; a 4 reflects the missing usage guidance but acknowledges the structured fields fill gaps.
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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. Description adds nothing beyond confirming messages inclusion, which is already in the include_messages parameter. 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?
Uses specific verb 'get' and resource 'conversation details', with 'with messages' clarifying the scope. Distinguishes from siblings like 'list_conversations' which lists, and 'send_conversation' which creates.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that list_conversations should be used to find conversation IDs, or that mark_conversations_read handles read state. The description implies usage but lacks exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.