AlphaWeb

threads_list

Read-only

List/search AlphaBrain chats or page one chat’s messages (untrusted text).

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>"
    },
    "name": "threads_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`cursor`	No
`module`	No
`thread`	No
`message`	No
`workspace`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe, read-only, closed-world profile. The description adds that returned text is untrusted, a security-relevant trait not in annotations, and clarifies the two operational modes.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and efficiently presents the two core actions. It could be slightly clearer about mode selection, but it is very compact.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter meanings, pagination behavior, and return value information, leaving the agent to guess.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only loosely hints at query and thread while leaving limit, cursor, module, message, and workspace unexplained. This is a significant gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states specific verbs (list/search or page) and the resource (AlphaBrain chats), with a clear secondary mode for paging messages. It does not need sibling differentiation because no direct sibling tool exists for chats.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no conditions for choosing one mode over the other. Usage is only implied by the description's phrasing.

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

All AlphaWeb tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?