Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

rooms_inbox

GET /rooms/inbox/:type — List your rooms by type

Returns your subscribed rooms filtered to a single type. Same shape as GET /rooms but scoped — e.g. /rooms/inbox/dm returns DMs only, /rooms/inbox/group returns group DMs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesRoom type filter. Allowed: `channel`, `dm`, `group`, `discussion`, `quick-question`, `event`.
limitNoMax results (1-100)
cursorNoCursor from a previous response's `nextCursor`. Pass to fetch the next page.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return shape matches GET /rooms, but does not disclose that it only returns subscribed rooms, pagination behavior, or required authentication. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 concise, well-structured sentences. The endpoint and purpose are front-loaded, with a clarifying example. No unnecessary content.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and scope. It references the shape of another tool but does not fully define the return structure. Still complete for a straightforward listing tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., type allowed values, limit, cursor). No extra semantics.

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 explicitly states the tool lists rooms by type, with an HTTP endpoint and concrete examples (DMs, group DMs). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'rooms' tool by specifying it returns a filtered subset.

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?

Indicates this is the scoped version of GET /rooms, implying use when a specific room type is needed. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear and alternatives are inferable from sibling tools.

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

All DC Member API 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.

Resources