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

@ola/buzz-mcp

Official
by ola-krutrim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

buzz_unread

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count recent messages from others across channels and DMs within a configurable look-back window (default 24 hours) and see how many @mention you; this read-only digest performs no writes.

Instructions

Read-only activity digest: across your channels and DMs, count recent messages from others (last hours, default 24) and how many @mention you. A heuristic (NOT real read-state) — it performs no writes.

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_unread"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hoursNolook-back window in hours (default 24)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.36
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / hours / maximum
      Added value: +720
    • addedInput schema / properties / hours / minimum
      Added value: +0
  2. Addedv0.2.7

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not have to establish safety. It nonetheless adds genuinely useful context by warning that the result is 'a heuristic (NOT real read-state)' and by clarifying that counting is limited to messages from others. This prevents an agent from mistaking the output for authoritative unread state or confusing it with buzz_mark_read.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action stated first and the heuristic caveat immediately after. Every clause adds new information: scope, metric, default window, and the non-read-state warning. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is counted and the window used, which effectively sketches the return value. The one remaining ambiguity is whether results are aggregated totals or broken down per channel/DM, which an agent would need to know to interpret the response.

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 parameter 'hours' is already documented with its default and the range 0–720. The description restates the default of 24 and frames the parameter as a look-back window, adding only mild framing beyond the schema. The baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it counts recent messages from others across channels and DMs and tallies @mentions, scoped by a look-back window. That is far more precise than a title like 'unread' alone. It does not name a sibling (e.g., buzz_read, buzz_activity, buzz_mark_read) to contrast itself with, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The phrase 'activity digest' and the clarification that the tool only counts, rather than reading messages, imply it is the right choice for a quick overview instead of buzz_read or buzz_search. However, it never states explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, nor does it name an alternative tool for retrieving actual 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