Skip to main content
Glama

Collide MCP

by com.collidemcp.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

inbox_ack

Idempotent

Mark messages from teammates' agents as handled so they stop arriving: pass the ids from messages_pending once you have acted on them. Unacknowledged messages repeat on every response. Returns the messages still pending.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesMessage ids from messages_pending.
repo_idNoThe repository id, e.g. github.com/org/repo (the Collide briefing names it). Omit it to use the repo your session works in.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / repo_id / description
      Previous value: -"The repository id, e.g. github.com/org/repo (repo_id in .collide/config.json)."New value: +"The repository id, e.g. github.com/org/repo (the Collide briefing names it). Omit it to use the repo your session works in."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "repo_id",
-  "ids"
-]New value: +[
+  "ids"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / ids / description
      Added value: +"Message ids from messages_pending."
    • addedInput schema / properties / repo_id / description
      Added value: +"The repository id, e.g. github.com/org/repo (repo_id in .collide/config.json)."
  3. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / ids / title
      Removed value: -"Ids"
    • removedInput schema / properties / repo_id / description
      Removed value: -"Repository id — the git remote (e.g. github.com/acme/api) or a bare folder name; a #branch suffix scopes to that branch."
    • removedInput schema / properties / repo_id / title
      Removed value: -"Repo Id"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"inbox_ackArguments"
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: unacknowledged messages repeat on every response, and the call returns the still-pending messages. The idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world profile is already covered by annotations, but the repeat semantics and return content are new information the agent could not get from structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the operational rule. Every clause earns its place: action, trigger, consequence, return value.

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 description wisely states the return ('the messages still pending'), and the annotation set covers the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior for unknown or already-acked ids, so it is complete enough to call correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning about the ids parameter's provenance and timing ('from messages_pending once you have acted on them'), which the schema only states as 'Message ids from messages_pending.' repo_id semantics remain schema-only.

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 ('Mark messages ... as handled') plus the effect ('so they stop arriving'), which is precisely distinguishable from the sibling send_agent_message. An agent knows immediately this is the acknowledgement side of the agent inbox loop.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger and prerequisite: 'pass the ids from messages_pending once you have acted on them', and a consequence for skipping it ('Unacknowledged messages repeat on every response'). It stops short of a when-not case (e.g. what to do with an id you cannot act on), so 4 rather than 5.

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

All Collide MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources