Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

slack_join_channel

Join a PUBLIC channel so reads and posts stop failing not_in_channel.

A PRIVATE channel cannot be joined by any Slack API — it is refused here, naming the human gesture (/invite) instead of pretending. Already a member → joined: false, already_member: true, no call made.

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": {
      "channel": "<channel>"
    },
    "name": "slack_join_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
channelYesChannel ID (C…). Get it from `slack_list_channels`.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does most of it: it discloses the private-channel refusal and its error semantics, the idempotent already-a-member path with its exact result shape (`joined: false, already_member: true`) and that no API call is made. What it omits is the authorization/scope context needed to join at all and any rate-limit or permission-failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the scope constraint and the outcome front-loaded before the edge-case behavior. The middle clause ('naming the human gesture ... instead of pretending') is slightly florid but still carries real behavioral information, so there is minimal waste.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the refusal path, and the idempotent return values — enough to call it and interpret the result correctly. It stops short of required bot scopes or how failures other than private-channel/not-a-member appear.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters — including the `_org`, `_group`, `_run_id`, `_project`, `_instance` call-context fields and the `channel` ID lookup hint — are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that for any parameter, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Join a PUBLIC channel') plus the concrete problem it solves (`not_in_channel` failures on reads and posts). The all-caps 'PUBLIC' scoping immediately separates it from any private-channel or messaging sibling; an agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger (a read or post is failing with `not_in_channel`), an explicit non-use case (private channels, which no Slack API can join), and an alternative action to recommend instead (`/invite`). Both the when and the when-not are stated, not inferred.

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

All Tulina toolsInspect
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