Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Signal Read Messages

signal_read_messages
Read-only

Reads messages from a specific Signal chat. The chat_id must come from a previous signal_list_chats call. Returns messages in chronological order with sender phone numbers and body text. Only messages cached locally by Signal Desktop are available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax messages to return (default 50)
chat_idYesChat ID from signal_list_chats

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoNumber of messages returned
messagesYesMessages from the chat, chronological

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior details: messages are returned in chronological order, include sender phone numbers and body text, and are limited to local Signal Desktop cache. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences: purpose, prerequisite, and return details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with a full input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description provides all essential context: the source of chat_id, chronological ordering, content fields, and the local cache limitation. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, including the default for limit, so baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning by requiring chat_id to originate from signal_list_chats, reinforcing the parameter's provenance. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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?

The description starts with a specific action, 'Reads messages from a specific Signal chat,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like signal_list_chats (which lists chats) and signal_search_messages (which searches messages) by emphasizing direct retrieval from a specified chat.

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?

The description explicitly states that chat_id must come from a previous signal_list_chats call, providing a clear prerequisite. It also adds the important limitation that only locally cached messages are available, giving context on when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not name alternative tools like signal_search_messages for search scenarios.

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

All local-mcp 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources