Skip to main content
Glama

list_intros

List the intro threads you're a party to (sent as an investor or received as a founder). Each entry includes the counterparty, message count, last-message preview, and whether you have unread messages. Optionally filter by your role or unread-only. (requires API key)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoFilter to intros where you are the investor or the founder. Omit to see both.
limitNo
unread_onlyNoOnly return threads with unread messages from the counterparty.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses requires API key and that it's a read operation listing threads with specific fields. No side effects to note; annotations are absent so description carries burden.

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?

Single sentence with parentheticals, front-loaded, no wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, output fields, filters, and auth. Lacks explanation of limit/pagination, but adequate for a simple list 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 covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions; limit is undocumented. Description mentions role and unread_only but not limit, providing little additional value over schema.

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?

Description clearly states it lists intro threads the user is a party to, with specific fields and filter options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_intro_thread (single thread) and request_intro.

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?

Description implies usage for browsing intros, with optional filters. No explicit when-not or alternative comparisons, but context from siblings makes it clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action on a specific resource (commitments, intros, projects, watches) with no overlap. For example, list_projects vs search_projects differ by filtering, and list_watches vs watch_project are clearly separate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., acknowledge_commitment, list_projects, update_watch. The verbs are imperative and the nouns clearly indicate the resource.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools cover the core interactions of a fundraising platform—project discovery, pipeline management, intros, and commitments—without being bloated or insufficient.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the investor and founder journey well, but lacks project creation/update tools for founders, which is a minor gap given the server's focus on round interactions.