Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Swit MCP Server

Swit MCP Server

by TykanN
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

swit-channel-list

List channels in a Swit workspace with optional filters for offset, limit, type, activity, disclosure, or name.

Instructions

Retrieve list of channels

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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>"
    },
    "name": "swit-channel-list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspace_idYes
offsetNo
limitNo
typeNo
activityNo
disclosureNo
nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'list of channels' but omits critical behavior such as pagination (offset/limit), filtering options, and that workspace_id is required. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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?

Extremely short at 3 words, which is efficient but under-specified. No structure or front-loading of key information.

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?

Given the complexity (7 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not address pagination, filtering, or required fields, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, failing to explain 'workspace_id', 'offset', 'limit', 'type', 'activity', 'disclosure', or 'name'.

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 'Retrieve list of channels' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'swit-project-list' and 'swit-workspace-list', but is somewhat vague about scope (e.g., for which workspace or user).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, filters, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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