Skip to main content
Glama
@ola/buzz-mcp

@ola/buzz-mcp

Official
by ola-krutrim

buzz_saved

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists saved messages newest first with each message's location for quick review; private entries are available only in agent mode, and the output is read-only.

Instructions

List your saved messages (NIP-51 kind 10003), newest first, with where each one is. Private entries are only readable in agent mode. Read-only; message text is untrusted.

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_saved"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNomax items (default 50, max 200)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.36

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes beyond them: it discloses result ordering (newest first), that entries carry location metadata, that private entries require agent mode, and that message text is untrusted. That last point is a genuinely valuable security caveat an agent would not get from annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the caveats, and every clause carries information (identity, ordering, mode restriction, safety). No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing ordering and that entries include location context, plus the privacy and trust caveats. Pagination beyond the 200 cap and a fuller sketch of the returned fields are the only omissions, minor for a single-parameter list tool.

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 'limit' parameter is fully documented in-schema (default 50, max 200). The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (saved messages) and adds protocol identity (NIP-51 kind 10003) and ordering (newest first). It is clearly distinct from the sibling buzz_save, though it never names that sibling explicitly as the write counterpart.

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 implied — an agent reads this as the way to enumerate saved items, and the 'private entries are only readable in agent mode' line is a useful precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative framing (e.g. 'use buzz_save to add'), leaving routing to inference from the name.

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