Skip to main content
Glama
RPasquale

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

slack_create_channel

DestructiveIdempotent

Create a Slack channel through the governed connector, using project context and optional approval for write operations.

Instructions

Slack connector operation create_channel (platform tool slack.create_channel).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectNo
argumentsNo{}
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Effect"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description does add governance-related behavior beyond the annotations: it notes routing authority, that Spring verifies the claimed effect, and that approval_ref is needed when resuming a write. However, it does not disclose operational behaviors like Slack permission requirements, failure modes, or the meaning of the destructiveHint annotation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The argument list is structured and mostly earns its place, and the text is not bloated. However, the opening line is a redundant restatement of the tool name, and the routing sentence is vague enough that it does not add precise actionable guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write operation with annotations indicating destructiveness and no schema descriptions, this definition is incomplete. It explains the envelope parameters but not the actual Slack operation, the expected `arguments` payload, or the operational conditions under which the tool should be invoked.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides brief semantic labels for project_id, project_ref, connector_account_ref, idempotency_key, effect, and approval_ref, but the critical `arguments` parameter is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with no information about the Slack create_channel fields needed, such as channel name, privacy, or topic.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description's main line, 'Slack connector operation `create_channel`', is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not state what creating a channel involves. It identifies the platform and operation but adds no functional explanation such as 'creates a Slack channel' or what effects the operation has.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_join_channel, slack_archive_channel, or other channel-managing operations. The only contextual note, 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority', is a routing constraint rather than a usage criterion.

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