Gymdesk by Cotlet

View messaging history in Gymdesk

gymdesk_view_messaging_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

View messaging history in the user's own Gymdesk account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Gymdesk step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Gymdesk Cloud Browser. Gymdesk's official API: No publicly documented Gymdesk API was found on 11 Nov 2026: gymdesk.com/api, gymdesk.com/developers and docs.gymdesk.com/api returned 404 and the help center has no Gymdesk API article.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gymdesk_view_messaging_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial non-obvious trait: the tool returns procedural guidance and performs no action in the account, so there is no side effect to worry about. It also explains the absence of an official API as the reason for the browser-based path. It stops short of describing the shape or granularity of the returned steps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the operational next step follows immediately. The closing sentence about 404s on gymdesk.com/api and the help center is justified as rationale for the browser route but is longer than it needs to be, and the dated '11 Nov 2026' detail is noise for an invoking agent.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only guidance tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it returns, that nothing is opened, and which tool family to use afterward. Only the return format/granularity is left unstated, which is minor at this complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing param-specific the description needs to compensate for. The absence of any input is consistent with a pure instruction-retrieval tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('View messaging history') scoped to 'the user's own Gymdesk account', and immediately clarifies the deliverable is step-by-step navigation instructions rather than the records themselves, which prevents the most likely misread. It does not name any sibling tool, so differentiation rests on the resource noun alone.

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 a clear workflow: this tool 'opens nothing by itself' and the actual action is done 'with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Gymdesk Cloud Browser'. That is explicit downstream routing. It lacks any when-not guidance or mention of alternative Gymdesk history/report tools that might serve a related need.

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

All Gymdesk by Cotlet tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?