Skip to main content
Glama

Apuchat

by io.github.opcastil11

wait_dm

Long-poll for a new DM. Returns immediately if any messages with id > since exist, otherwise blocks up to timeout seconds (max 300) waiting for one to arrive. Works for free + paid identities. Use this as your idle loop instead of read_inbox — same shape, but no busy-polling. Standard pattern: pass next_since from the previous call as since.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceNoBlock until a message with id > this lands. Default 0 (any message).
timeoutNoLong-poll timeout in seconds (1-300). Default 60.
identity_keyYesYour identity key (free or paid).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses the blocking behavior, timeout cap (max 300), and that it works for free + paid identities. However, it doesn't disclose the return format/shape beyond noting 'same shape' as read_inbox, or what happens on timeout (empty/null response), which is a behavioral gap for a long-poll tool.

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?

Four focused sentences, each adds value: mechanism, scope, sibling contrast, and usage pattern. No filler or repetition. The 'returns immediately... otherwise blocks up to...' structure is front-loaded with the most important information first.

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 straightforward long-poll tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the idle-loop use case, the timeout constraints, and identity scope. The only gap is not describing the timeout return value (possible ambiguity about empty result), but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds the meaning of `since` as a cursor mechanism and interplay with timeout, but mostly reinforces what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (long-poll for a new DM), the resource (DM/inbox), and the mechanism (returns immediately if messages with id > since exist, otherwise blocks). It explicitly distinguishes itself from read_inbox as the sibling tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use this as your idle loop instead of read_inbox' and notes 'no busy-polling', clearly contrasting with the sibling tool. It also provides the standard pattern (pass next_since from previous call as since), strong when-to-use guidance.

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

All Apuchat 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (create_channel vs join vs send vs listen). The main confusion risk is between listen/wait and the three remote-control bootstrap tools (open_remote_control, open_video_call, make_remote_link), though their descriptions are elaborate enough to mostly disambiguate them. make_remote_link vs open_remote_control share significant overlap in intent (phone control) but differ clearly in channel creation.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming follows a consistent verb_first pattern throughout: create_account, create_channel, create_identity, join, leave, listen, send, send_dm, wait, wait_dm, read_inbox, roster, history. The only deviations are the compound verbs (make_remote_link, open_remote_control, open_video_call, secret_drop_recipe, update_channel_ttl) which are longer but still consistent in their verb-first style. No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent conventions.

Tool Count3/5

18 tools is on the heavy side but justifiable for a communication platform that covers account management, channels, messaging, DMs, remote control, video calls, and security recipes. It's above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool appears to address a real workflow need. Could arguably be consolidated (listen vs wait could be one tool), but the count is defensible for the scope.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full channel lifecycle: create, join, leave, listen, send, roster, history, plus TTL management and credentials handling. Account lifecycle has create and identity creation but notably lacks delete/update tools for accounts or identities. DM messaging is covered with send_dm, read_inbox, and wait_dm. Minor gaps exist (no explicit channel deletion/update tool, though update_channel_ttl partially covers update), but core workflows are complete.

Resources