Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
express-reader-mcp

express-reader-mcp

by Eflarus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

express_open_link

Opens an eXpress deep link and returns the referenced message with surrounding context, including attachment metadata and reply/thread flags. Warning: this marks the linked chat as read.

Instructions

Open an eXpress deep link (e.g. https://xlnk.ms/open/message?sync_id=...&chat_id=...) and return the referenced message plus surrounding context. Each message includes attachment metadata and flags (hasThread, isReply). WARNING: opens the linked chat, which MARKS IT READ.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "express_open_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe xlnk.ms / eXpress deep link
contextNoMessages of context before and after the target (default 5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses a significant side effect: opening the linked chat MARKS IT READ. It also describes the return shape (target message plus surrounding context, attachment metadata, and flags). It leaves out permissions, error behavior, and rate limits, but the key mutation warning is strong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no filler. Purpose and return content are front-loaded, and the critical warning is placed at the end where it remains visible. Slightly stronger placement of the read-marking warning earlier would improve it, but the structure is efficient.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and the main side effect. An agent can understand what it will get back and the read-marking consequence. Edge cases such as invalid links or permission requirements are not covered, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both the url and context parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the URL shape with an example and frames context as surrounding messages, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: opening an eXpress deep link and returning the referenced message plus surrounding context. It includes a concrete URL example and clarifies what the returned messages contain. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like express_read_chat or express_search_messages, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the need to resolve an xlnk.ms deep link, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over express_read_chat, express_search_messages, or other read tools. No alternatives or exclusions are named. The warning about marking the chat read adds important context but is not routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools