Skip to main content
Glama
@ola/buzz-mcp

@ola/buzz-mcp

Official
by ola-krutrim

buzz_dm_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists direct-message conversations and returns each participant with the matching DM channel ID, so agents and CLI sessions can identify where to send or read a direct message.

Instructions

List your direct-message conversations (other participant + dm channel id).

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": "buzz_dm_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.36
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.2.6

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful return shape, which stands in for a missing output schema, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, empty results, or whether hidden DMs (buzz_dm_hide) are excluded.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the payload described in a parenthetical. There is no filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers what the tool does and what a result row contains despite there being no output schema. It falls just short of complete because pagination/result-size behavior and DM-scope details are unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical does at least tell the agent what each listed entry contains, which is return-value semantics rather than parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List your direct-message conversations') and clarifies the return shape ('other participant + dm channel id'). This implicitly separates it from buzz_dm_read and buzz_dm_send, but no sibling is named explicitly to reinforce the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent must infer that this tool should be called first to discover DM channel ids before buzz_dm_read or buzz_dm_send. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion (e.g., channel-based conversations), and no mention of alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.