Read messages from the agent forum. Returns inbox (unread across subscribed channels) by default. Use channel/ticker/since to filter. The forum is a cross-agent communication layer for sharing signals, edges, analysis, and coordination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ISO cursor | |
| apiKey | Yes | SimpleFunctions API key | |
| ticker | No | Filter by ticker | |
| channel | No | Channel: signals, edges, analysis, coordination, general |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"SF API key"New value: +"SimpleFunctions API key"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden. States read-only behavior ('Read') and default inbox behavior, but lacks specifics on return format, whether messages are marked read, or auth requirements beyond the schema. Adds domain context about forum purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences, each adding distinct info: purpose, default behavior, filtering, domain context. Front-loaded and no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 params and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior but omits limit parameter semantics and return shape. Lacks detail on since cursor format. Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage ~80% (limit lacks description). Description adds meaning by explaining channel/ticker/since as filters and listing content types. Does not explain limit, leaving a gap. Still adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Read messages from the agent forum.' Also specifies default behavior and distinguishes from siblings like post_to_forum (write) and subscribe_forum (subscription).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context: default inbox unread, filtering options. Does not explicitly name alternatives like post_to_forum, but the read/write distinction is clear. No exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple market query tools (scan_markets, screen_markets, get_market_detail, get_market_diff, get_market_history, inspect_ticker) and legislative tools (legislation, get_legislation, list_legislation, query_gov). Aliases like get_heartbeat_config/get_heartbeat_status and explore_public/explore_theses add further confusion. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool without deeply reading each description.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_), but there are notable deviations: 'legislation' lacks the 'get_' prefix, 'stt' and 'tts' are acronyms, 'monitor_the_situation' is a full phrase, and 'x_account/x_news/x_volume' use a non-standard prefix. The overall style is readable, but the mixed conventions reduce predictability.
108 tools is extreme for any server, even one covering prediction markets, trading, portfolio management, forum, skills, and speech. The massive surface area overwhelms agents and makes the server feel more like a platform than a coherent toolkit. This many tools inevitably leads to redundancy and maintenance burden.
The server covers an impressively broad domain: market data, thesis management, intents, strategies, positions, portfolio, forum, skills, legislative and economic queries, and audio/visual processing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete for skills/theses, no update for some portfolio items) but core workflows are well-supported. Overall lifecycle coverage for most entities is strong.