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

@ola/buzz-mcp

Official
by ola-krutrim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

buzz_message_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a shareable buzz:// link for a channel message, or open a buzz:// link to verify and retrieve its target message using access and ownership checks.

Instructions

Get a shareable link to a message, or open one. With channel + event (the from buzz_read) → the canonical buzz://message?channel=…&id=…[&thread=…] link (thread = the root when it's a reply). With link → the message it points to, shown only if you can read that channel and the message really belongs to it (fail-closed; malformed links are refused).

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_message_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linkNoa buzz://message?… link to open
eventNothe target message's <id> (from buzz_read)
channelNochannel name or id

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?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds non-obvious behavior: access is fail-closed, the message must genuinely belong to the channel, malformed links are refused, and thread resolution returns the root when the target is a reply. That authorization/validation semantics is real value beyond the annotations, though the return shape (string vs object) is not stated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the two modes in compact parallel clauses. The arrow/ellipsis shorthand and the inline buzz:// URL template are dense but earn their space; minor readability cost from telegraphic phrasing.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both input modes, authorization behavior, and thread handling, which is essentially everything needed to call it correctly. The only gap is an explicit statement of what the return value looks like.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description nonetheless adds relational meaning the schema lacks: that 'channel' and 'event' combine to form the link, that 'event' is the <id> from buzz_read, and that 'link' is an alternative input mode rather than a companion field.

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 first sentence names both operations with specific verbs and resources: produce a shareable link for a message, or resolve a link to its message. The two modes are each tied to distinct parameters, so an agent can tell exactly which capability it needs without consulting siblings.

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?

It clearly states the two usage modes: 'channel' + 'event' to mint a canonical link, or 'link' to open one, and it points to buzz_read as the source of the <id>. It does not explicitly exclude cases or contrast against other sibling tools (e.g., buzz_read, buzz_thread_read) for reading message content.

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