sendbird_list_open_channelsList open (public, participant-based) channels. Platform API: GET /open_channels. Returns { channels[], next }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100. Default 10. | |
| token | No | Pagination token from a previous response's `next`. | |
| custom_types | No | Comma-separated channel custom types to filter on. | |
| url_contains | No | Substring match on channel URL. | |
| name_contains | No | Substring match on channel name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the exact REST endpoint and the paginated return shape { channels[], next }, which explains how the token parameter connects to responses.
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?
The description is a single economical sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the API endpoint and return shape. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
For a read-only list operation with five well-documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states the core purpose and the return shape with pagination, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning the pagination response field, which is appropriate but not particularly enriching.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('open (public, participant-based) channels'), and explicitly explains what 'open' means, which distinguishes it from group-channel sibling tools. The API endpoint is also provided as additional confirmation.
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?
The description makes the usage context clear: use this tool to list open/public channels. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as sendbird_list_group_channels, but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair (users, group/open channels, members, messages), and the get/list/create/update/send verbs keep boundaries clear. The raw GET escape hatch is explicitly limited to unwrapped paths, so it does not create meaningful overlap.
All tools follow the predictable sendbird_<verb>_<resource> snake_case pattern, with consistent verbs like create, get, list, update, and send. The generic sendbird_request is a deliberate exception rather than a naming inconsistency.
14 tools is within the ideal range and each tool covers a coherent piece of Sendbird's chat platform: users, channels, members, messages, and a raw GET fallback. There are no redundant or filler tools.
The set covers common read/list flows and some mutations, but lifecycle coverage has notable gaps: group channels can be created and read but not updated/deleted, messages can be sent and listed but not updated/deleted, and users have no delete operation. The raw GET tool is read-only and cannot compensate for these missing write operations.