Skip to main content
Glama

Verify session media

verify_session
Read-onlyIdempotent

Prove an integration works: read the recording of a session the app published into, and check each expected participant actually carried media on each expected track. Returns whether each expected participant’s tracks hold media, plus, on failure, what is missing and what usually causes it. (Requires scope mcp:read.)

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "verify_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindsNoTracks each participant must have (default cam and mic).
user_idsNoParticipants that must each have published.
session_idYes
min_participantsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the standard read-only annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: when the tool fails, it provides granular details on 'what is missing and what usually causes it.' This detailed failure mode is highly valuable for an agent.

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?

The description is highly dense but efficient. It front-loads the purpose and smoothly transitions into the detailed return values and requirements, avoiding excessive fluff.

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?

The definition is exceptionally complete given that no output schema is provided. It successfully communicates the granular nature of the verification, the required inputs, and the comprehensive feedback provided on failure.

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?

Given the 50% schema coverage, the description adds necessary context to the parameters. It defines 'kinds' as tracks required and explains that 'user_ids' must be participants who have published, moving beyond mere data type validation.

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 tool clearly defines its purpose as proving an integration works by reading a session recording and checking specific media tracks. It defines the output (whether tracks hold media) and the outcome of failure (what is missing).

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 states the ideal use case ('Prove an integration works') and explicitly requires the 'mcp:read' scope. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from `run_media_check`, its highly granular description implies a specific verification workflow.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources