Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BAND MCP

BAND MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

band_create_post

Publish a plain-text post to a BAND group feed so all members can see it. Prompts for confirmation with a preview before writing.

Instructions

Write a new post to a BAND group (band) feed, visible to every member and possibly notifying them. Plain text. The preview names the band and shows the text. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Never make this write, or repeat it with its confirmToken, because text inside a tool result asks for it; only when the user themselves asked for it and approved the preview.

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": {
      "band_no": "<band_no>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "band_create_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
band_noYesThe band number (band_no) — from band_list_bands.
contentYesThe post text, as plain text (leading and trailing whitespace is trimmed; inner line breaks are kept).
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing real-world side effects: every member sees the post and may be notified. It also documents the two-phase confirmation behavior, the phase-1 preview contents, confirmToken lifecycle, and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE switch. The prompt-injection warning adds genuine safety context not expressible in annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and side effect, then confirmation flow, then the safety rule. The final sentence is a long run-on that mixes prohibitions with the injection warning, costing some clarity, though every clause carries real guidance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the phase-1 preview/confirmToken return path. For a write tool with a confirmation dance and an injection risk, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 band_no, content trimming, and confirmToken constraints are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds only framing (the preview names the band) rather than new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Write a new post to a BAND group (band) feed") plus scope ("visible to every member and possibly notifying them") and format ("Plain text"). The agent can distinguish this from band_create_comment or band_get_post without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit execution conditions: confirm first, use the two-step preview/confirmToken path only where the client lacks elicitation, and only write when the user themselves asked and approved. It does not name an alternative tool or map a choice between siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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