Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
stashcat-api-mcp

stashcat-api-mcp

by dclausen01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

search_channels

Discover joinable channels within a company by searching their names.

Instructions

Searches for visible (joinable) channels in a company by name.

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": {
      "company_id": "<company_id>"
    },
    "name": "search_channels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
searchNoSearch term to filter channels by name
company_idYesCompany ID to search in

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the 'visible (joinable)' filter and the name-based search, which are key behaviors. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior or the fact that it is read-only beyond the verb 'searches,' which is implicit.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the essential search behavior but omits context about pagination (limit/offset) and any relationship to sibling tools. It is minimally complete but lacks richer guidance.

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% since limit and offset lack descriptions. The description adds 'in a company' and 'by name' which map to company_id and search, but these are already present in the schema. It provides no added meaning for limit or offset, leaving half the parameters insufficiently explained.

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 the specific verb 'searches' and identifies the resource as 'visible (joinable) channels in a company by name.' This clearly distinguishes it from broader tools like list_channels by emphasizing the search and joinability filters.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool should be used when the user needs to find joinable channels by name, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like list_channels. It gives context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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