Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gantry

Gantry

by fourn9
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_team_messages

Read-only

Retrieve team messages for a session to review coordination and execution context, with optional filters for time, limit, intent, or change.

Instructions

list team messages

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": {
      "arguments": "<arguments>"
    },
    "name": "list_team_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsYes
idempotency_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, the meaning of the limit cap, or what a "team message" contains — all relevant for a read tool with a nested request object.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The text is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise — four words that convey no operational information. There is no structure to front-load because there is no content.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given a nested request schema with 0% coverage, a hard-to-infer after/limit pagination model, and no output schema to explain returns, the description leaves far too much unexplained for an agent to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the schema is not simple: an arguments object contains seven undocumented fields including nested basis and intent objects plus after, change_id, limit, and session_id. The description supplies zero meaning for any of them, leaving ambiguous parameters like basis and intent entirely opaque.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"list team messages" restates the tool name with no added specificity — no indication of which team, what a message is, or what scope of listing. It does not distinguish this from siblings like bot_inbox, studio_inbox, or session_details, which plausibly surface similar content.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (a session_id is required but the description never says so), and no mention of alternatives among the many inbox/session siblings. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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