Podio MCP Server

podio_communication

Manage Podio comments, statuses, notifications, tags, and subscriptions by operation, enabling MCP clients to create, update, list, delete, or track communication records.

Instructions

Manage comments, statuses, notifications, tags, and subscriptions.

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": {
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "podio_communication"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	Tags list
`refId`	No
`value`	No	Comment or status text
`viewed`	No
`fileIds`	No
`refType`	No
`starred`	No
`statusId`	No
`commentId`	No
`operation`	Yes	Communication operation
`externalId`	No
`notificationId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Manage' implies mutation, but the description does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or which operations are destructive versus read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a complex multi-operation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A 17-operation, 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations needs substantial description to be callable correctly. One sentence naming resource categories is completely inadequate for that complexity.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% across 12 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Critical fields like refId, refType, commentId, notificationId, and the operation enum are left entirely to the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It names the communication domain and lists the resources involved (comments, statuses, notifications, tags, subscriptions), but the verb 'Manage' is vague and does not clarify the 17 distinct operations or distinguish this tool from sibling domain tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like podio_items or podio_tasks, nor any prerequisites, context, or exclusions for the individual communication operations.

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

Deploy Server