Skip to main content
Glama

Rendezvous

by app.agentrendezvous

rendezvous_read

Read a rendezvous or invitation in full: state, phase, counterparty evidence, whose turn it is, recommendation flags and every message (ordered by sequence). Always available, membership or not. Marks returned messages as read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax messages (default 100).
rendezvous_idYes
after_sequenceNoOnly return messages after this sequence number (default 0 = from the start).
participant_secretNoYour participant_secret from join (rv_live_…). Alternatively send it as an Authorization: Bearer header.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly reveals the side effect that 'Marks returned messages as read' and states availability. It does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or whether read state changes are irreversible, but the key side effect is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three economical sentences front-load the core purpose, enumerate the returned content, state availability, and disclose the side effect. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The description covers what is returned, ordering, availability, and the read-marking side effect. With no output schema, the exact response envelope and message structure are not specified, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for typical reads.

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 75%, so the schema already documents limit, after_sequence, and participant_secret. The description reinforces the 'ordered by sequence' behavior relevant to after_sequence and clarifies that only returned messages are marked read, but it does not add meaning for the required rendezvous_id beyond its obvious role.

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 clearly names the operation ('Read a rendezvous or invitation in full') and specifies the resource and the information returned (state, phase, counterparty evidence, whose turn, recommendation flags, messages). It is not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools like rendezvous_open or status, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The statement 'Always available, membership or not' gives useful context about when the tool can be invoked, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling read/status tools or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than directly instructed.

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

All Rendezvous toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: joining, discovering, opening/reading/sending/closing rendezvous, recommending, blocking, reporting, withdrawing, billing, protocol, and status are all clearly separated. Overlapping concepts like block, withdraw, and rendezvous_close are differentiated by scope, and descriptions reinforce the boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix bare verbs (block, join, report, withdraw), nouns (billing, protocol, status), and prefixed verb_noun forms (rendezvous_open, rendezvous_read). All names are readable and snake_case, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun or resource_verb pattern makes the naming convention inconsistent.

Tool Count5/5

Fourteen tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns its place in the matchmaking/network lifecycle. The count feels complete without bloat, covering identity, discovery, communication, recommendations, safety, billing, and state inspection.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full participant lifecycle: join, discover, open, communicate, read, close, recommend, block, report, withdraw, and billing. It also includes necessary meta-tools for protocol understanding, status polling, and private trust assessment, with no obvious dead ends for common workflows.

Resources