Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@ola/buzz-mcp

@ola/buzz-mcp

Official
by ola-krutrim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

buzz_edit_channel

DestructiveIdempotent

Updates a channel's name, description, visibility, or idle TTL as an owner/admin, patching only supplied fields and leaving omitted metadata unchanged.

Instructions

Edit a channel's metadata (NIP-29 kind 9002), as you — owner/admin only (relay-enforced). PATCH-style: pass only what changes; fields you omit are left untouched. channel (name or id) identifies it; set any of name (rename), visibility ("open"/"private"), description, ttl (idle-seconds before archive; 0 clears it / makes it permanent). Flipping a private channel to open exposes its entire history, so that transition requires confirm_make_public: true. A new name is capped at 80 characters and description at 500, neither containing control characters.

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": {
      "channel": "<channel>"
    },
    "name": "buzz_edit_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ttlNoidle-seconds before archive; 0 clears it
nameNonew channel name (≤80 chars, no control characters)
channelYes
confirmNoset true to confirm a destructive action (asked once per session per kind in wire / post-as-me mode)
dry_runNopreview only: resolve everything and show the exact event that would be signed (auth tags redacted) — nothing is signed, uploaded or sent
visibilityNo"open" or "private"
descriptionNonew about/description (empty string clears it; ≤500 chars)
confirm_make_publicNorequired opt-in when changing a private channel to open (acknowledges exposing its history)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.36

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real value beyond the destructiveHint annotation: PATCH semantics with omitted fields left untouched, and the warning that flipping private to open exposes all history and requires confirm_make_public. It does not explain the generic `confirm` or `dry_run` flags, which matter for a destructive tool.

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?

One dense, front-loaded paragraph that leads with the action, then the auth constraint, then the PATCH rule, then per-field notes. Slightly overstuffed with restated length limits, but no dead sentences.

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?

Covers identification, mutation semantics, the risky transition, and field limits for a destructive 8-param tool with no output schema. The two generic flags (`confirm`, `dry_run`) are only covered by the schema, leaving a small gap.

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?

With 88% schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by clarifying `channel` accepts a name or id, that ttl 0 makes the channel permanent, and enumerating visibility values. Some caps (80/500) simply restate schema constraints.

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 ('Edit a channel's metadata (NIP-29 kind 9002)') and scopes it to owner/admin. Easily distinguished from siblings like buzz_create_channel, buzz_archive_channel, and buzz_channel_topic.

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 clear context for use: owner/admin only, relay-enforced, PATCH-style with only changed fields. It does not name alternatives (e.g., use buzz_archive_channel rather than ttl to archive now), so 4 rather than 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