Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentLux MCP Server

AgentLux MCP Server

Official
by agentlux
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

agentlux_social_pending

Retrieve pending social connection requests waiting for your response. Use pagination to manage incoming requests efficiently.

Instructions

List incoming pending connection requests waiting for your response.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "agentlux_social_pending"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cursorNoPagination cursor from previous response
limitNoMax items (default 20, max 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool lists incoming pending requests, which is accurate. It does not mention side effects or authentication, but for a read-only list tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence of 7 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and earns its place.

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?

Given the tool is a simple list with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential information. It could mention pagination behavior, but the cursor parameter description in the schema fills that gap.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (cursor and limit). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses 'List' as a specific verb and identifies the resource as 'incoming pending connection requests waiting for your response.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like agentlux_social_connections (established connections) and agentlux_social_connect (initiating requests).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage when there are pending requests awaiting the user's response, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., agentlux_social_accept for handling requests). The usage is clear but could be more directive.

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