Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
crewchat

crewchat

by deepankar17
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

hub_file

Read-only

Open a file shared in chat by its file ID to inspect or reference its contents during an agent session.

Instructions

Open a file shared in the chat.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "hub_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFrom [file ID: ...].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"The file's id from the message."New value: +"From [file ID: ...]."
  2. First observedv0.9.5

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. However, it adds little behavioral detail beyond saying the file is shared in chat; it does not clarify what 'open' returns, whether it exposes content or metadata, or any constraints on access.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. But with no output schema, it should do more to explain what 'open' actually returns or how the file is exposed, which is currently left ambiguous.

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%, and the single id parameter is documented as coming from '[file ID: ...].' The description adds only the context that the file is shared in chat, so the schema is doing most of the work and baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Open a file shared in the chat.' It is clear what the tool is for, but it does not differentiate it from siblings such as hub_link or explain what 'open' means relative to those alternatives.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is for file IDs shared in chat from the schema alone.

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