Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Teams Call History

teams_call_history
Read-only

Reads Microsoft Teams call & meeting history from the Mac's local Teams cache — no Graph API, no token, no admin consent (the same local store the Teams Calls tab renders). Each call includes direction (incoming/outgoing/missed), participants (names + ids), start / answered / end times, duration, call type (1:1/group/meeting) and a stable call id. Optional since/until (YYYY-MM-DD) narrow the range — e.g. a daily collector pulls the previous day's calls.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax calls to return (default 50), newest first
sinceNoOnly calls on/after this date, YYYY-MM-DD (optional)
untilNoOnly calls on/before this date, YYYY-MM-DD (optional)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
callsNo
countNo
errorNo

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: data is from a local cache, no network auth required, and it lists the specific fields returned (direction, participants, times, duration, call type). This exceeds the baseline for annotation-backed transparency.

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?

The description is three focused sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds return-field details, and ends with parameter usage and a practical example. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description still explains the kinds of data returned, the source (local cache), a usage example, and the Mac-specific constraint. It is complete for a read-only tool with three optional parameters and simple filtering.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already well-documented with descriptions. The description adds a brief mention of the optional since/until range and an example, but it mostly repeats schema info without introducing new semantics or edge-case behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool reads Microsoft Teams call & meeting history from the local Mac cache, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle chats/channels by focusing on call history and emphasizing it works without Graph API or admin consent.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use it (reading call history) and includes an example use case (daily collector pulling the previous day's calls). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the local cache and no-API framing makes its niche obvious relative to siblings like teams_read_chat_messages.

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