Skip to main content
Glama

parabol

by io.usefulapi

List meetings (history)

list_meetings
Read-only

List past/ongoing meetings for one or more teams (Relay connection), newest first. teamIds is required. meetingTypes defaults to all four (retrospective, action, poker, teamPrompt). before bounds the window (defaults to now); paginate older with after. Parabol GraphQL: viewer.meetings. Requires MEETINGS_READ.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterNoDateTime cursor — return meetings before this ISO timestamp (older page).
firstNoMax meetings to return (default 20).
beforeNoDateTime upper bound (ISO). Defaults to now.
teamIdsYesTeam ids to fetch meetings for (required).
meetingTypesNoMeeting types to include (MeetingTypeEnum). Defaults to all four.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, default meeting types, timestamp window semantics, pagination with `after`, the underlying GraphQL field, and the required MEETINGS_READ permission. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and scope, then efficiently covers defaults, pagination, GraphQL mapping, and permissions. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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?

For a read-only list tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential invocation details: required input, default behavior, pagination mechanics, and access requirements. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly without further inference.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by clarifying the `after`/`before` relationship ('paginate older with after'), defaulting behavior for `meetingTypes` and `before`, and emphasizing `teamIds` is required. This goes beyond the raw 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 names a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('meetings'), and a scope ('for one or more teams'), and distinguishes historical/past meetings from active ones via title and 'past/ongoing'. This makes it easy to tell apart from the sibling list_active_meetings without inspecting schemas.

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 provides clear operational context: `teamIds` is required, meeting types default to all four, and pagination direction is explained with `before`/`after`. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer list_active_meetings, but the 'past/ongoing' framing implies the historical use case clearly enough.

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

All parabol 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: get_/list_ tools are clearly separate read paths, create_/update_/start_/add_ tools map to distinct mutations, and the two escape hatches are explicitly labeled. Even near neighbors like list_meetings and list_active_meetings are unambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent pattern: list_/get_ for reads, create_/update_/start_ for mutations, with plural nouns for collections and singular for single resources. Minor deviations like add_comment, invite_to_team, and the parabol_* escape hatches prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count3/5

With 21 tools, the server sits in the 16-25 range that feels heavy for an MCP surface. The breadth is somewhat justified because Parabol spans organizations, teams, meetings, tasks, and comments, but many tools are list/get variants of the same core entities.

Completeness3/5

Core read and write flows exist for teams, organizations, meetings, tasks, and comments, but there are notable lifecycle gaps such as no delete_task, no reflection update/delete, and no meeting end/update mutations. The parabol_graphql and parabol_query escape hatches help work around these gaps but do not make the curated surface fully complete.

Resources