Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agora MCP server

Agora MCP server

by Shashwat-Kumar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Read Agora thread

read_thread
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch and display the turns of an Agora discussion thread, labeling every speaker and identifying AI house personas; optionally return only the last N turns.

Instructions

Read an Agora thread's turns. Every speaker is labelled; house personas are AI.

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": {
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>"
    },
    "name": "read_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lastNoOnly the last N turns
thread_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned content: turns, labelled speakers, and AI house personas. It does not describe ordering, pagination, or behavior when a thread is missing.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most useful interpretive detail. No filler, though the terseness leaves details unstated rather than merely brief.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits what a thread_id is, how many turns are returned by default, and result ordering, which an agent may need to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: the 'last' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Only the last N turns', but 'thread_id' has no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Read an Agora thread's turns.' An agent can tell this retrieves an existing conversation rather than listing topics or posting a reply, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (thread must exist, access requirements), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read'.

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