Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

search_rooms

GET /search/rooms — Search rooms

Search rooms by name, description, and topic. Returns rooms that match the query AND that you have access to (subscribed-or-browsable; private rooms / DMs / group DMs you're NOT a member of are filtered out).

Query syntax (q=): plain words match with prefix + typo tolerance. Wrap a phrase in double quotes to require an exact ordered match — e.g. q="remote work". AND/OR/NOT/parentheses are NOT parsed in q= — use the structured filter params below for boolean composition.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch text. Required.
pageNo1-indexed page number.
typeNoRoom type filter. Allowed: `channel`, `dm`, `group`, `discussion`, `quick-question`, `event`.
limitNoMax hits per page (1-100).
userIDNoScope to rooms created by this DCer.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that results are filtered by access (subscribed-or-browsable; excludes private rooms not a member of). It also details query behavior (prefix, typo tolerance, exact phrase). With no annotations, this provides good transparency, though pagination behavior and sorting are not mentioned.

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 well-organized with clear sections (access filtering, query syntax). It is concise, using no unnecessary words, while providing essential information.

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?

Given the 5 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers search behavior, access restrictions, and query syntax comprehensively. It is complete for a search tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the query syntax for 'q' (prefix, typo tolerance, exact phrase) and that AND/OR/NOT are not parsed, which supplements the schema descriptions.

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 'Search rooms by name, description, and topic.' It clearly identifies the resource (rooms) and differentiates from sibling search tools like search_chapters and search_events.

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 explains query syntax, including prefix matching, typo tolerance, and exact phrase matching. It also clarifies that AND/OR/NOT are not parsed in q, guiding users to use structured filter params. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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