Un servidor de código abierto del Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) que conecta a Claude AI con Viva Engage (Yammer). Explora las comunidades de tu red doméstica, busca publicaciones, lee conversaciones y publica respuestas, todo a través de una conversación natural con Claude.
Creado por Pranav Joshi
Una vez conectado, puedes pedirle a Claude cosas como:
"¿A qué comunidades de Viva Engage pertenezco?"
"Busca publicaciones sobre errores de Business Central"
"¿Cuáles son las últimas conversaciones en la comunidad de desarrolladores?"
"Responde a ese hilo con..."
"Muéstrame mi feed de Viva Engage"
Related MCP server: linkedin-mcp-server
Este servidor MCP funciona solo con tu red doméstica (la red principal de la organización vinculada a tus credenciales de inicio de sesión).
¿Por qué no puede acceder a redes externas?
Viva Engage admite dos tipos de redes:
Red doméstica: tu organización principal (por ejemplo, el Viva Engage de tu empresa)
Redes externas: comunidades alojadas por otras organizaciones de las que eres miembro invitado (por ejemplo, la comunidad de socios de BC de Microsoft)
La API REST de Yammer (www.yammer.com/api/v1) solo devuelve datos de tu red doméstica, independientemente de los parámetros o tokens que se utilicen. Las redes externas requieren cookies de sesión del navegador que solo están disponibles después de un inicio de sesión web completo, algo que no se puede replicar solo mediante llamadas a la API.
La API Graph más reciente de Microsoft (graph.microsoft.com) tampoco admite redes externas; solo funciona con redes en modo nativo dentro de tu propio inquilino.
Esta es una limitación de la API de Microsoft, no una limitación de este servidor MCP. Si Microsoft amplía su API para admitir redes externas en el futuro, este servidor se podrá actualizar para admitirlas.
You ask Claude a question
↓
Claude calls this MCP server
↓
Server calls Viva Engage API using YOUR login
↓
Returns data only YOU can already see
↓
Claude answers your questionPrivacidad: Cada usuario registra su propia aplicación de Azure y utiliza sus propias credenciales de Microsoft. Ningún dato pasa nunca por la infraestructura de nadie más. Tu token de inicio de sesión se almacena cifrado solo en tu máquina.
Node.js v18 o superior
Una cuenta de trabajo/educativa de Microsoft con acceso a Viva Engage
Esta es una configuración única (~10 minutos). Registras tu propia aplicación bajo tu propia cuenta de Microsoft. Nadie más puede usar tu aplicación; está vinculada solo a tus credenciales.
Ve a portal.azure.com e inicia sesión con tu cuenta de trabajo/educativa de Microsoft
Busca "App registrations" (Registros de aplicaciones) → haz clic en "+ New registration" (Nuevo registro)
Rellena:
Nombre: mcp-viva-engage (o lo que prefieras)
Tipos de cuenta admitidos: Multiple Entra ID tenants (Múltiples inquilinos de Entra ID) → selecciona Allow all tenants (Permitir todos los inquilinos)
URI de redirección:
Plataforma = Public client/native (mobile & desktop) (Cliente público/nativo)
URI = http://localhost
Haz clic en "Register" (Registrar)
En la página de información general, copia y guarda ambos:
Application (client) ID (ID de aplicación)
Directory (tenant) ID (ID de directorio)
En la barra lateral izquierda, haz clic en "API permissions" (Permisos de API)
Haz clic en "+ Add a permission" (Añadir un permiso) → haz clic en la pestaña "All APIs" (Todas las API) → busca "Yammer"
Haz clic en "Yammer" → haz clic en "Delegated permissions" (Permisos delegados)
Marca estos cuatro permisos:
✅ user_impersonation
✅ Community.Read.All
✅ EngagementConversation.ReadWrite.All
✅ Storyline.ReadWrite.All
Haz clic en "Add permissions" (Añadir permisos)
Nota para cuentas de trabajo/educativas: Es posible que el administrador de TI de tu organización deba otorgar consentimiento para esta aplicación antes de que puedas iniciar sesión por primera vez. Este es un paso único. Puedes enviar una solicitud de aprobación directamente desde la pantalla de inicio de sesión cuando ejecutes el servidor por primera vez.
# Clone the repo
git clone https://github.com/pranav4186/mcp-viva-engage.git
cd mcp-viva-engage
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build
npm run buildCopia el archivo env de ejemplo:
# Windows
copy .env.example .env
# Mac/Linux
cp .env.example .envAbre .env y rellena tus valores del Paso 1:
AZURE_CLIENT_ID=your-application-client-id-here
AZURE_TENANT_ID=your-directory-tenant-id-hereImportante: Nunca subas tu archivo
.enva GitHub. Ya está en.gitignorepara evitar esto.
Abre tu archivo de configuración de Claude Desktop:
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Mac: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Añade el servidor viva-engage a la sección mcpServers:
{
"mcpServers": {
"viva-engage-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["C:/path/to/mcp-viva-engage/dist/server.js"],
"env": {
"AZURE_CLIENT_ID": "your-application-client-id-here",
"AZURE_TENANT_ID": "your-directory-tenant-id-here"
}
}
}
}Reemplaza
C:/path/to/mcp-viva-engagecon la ruta real donde clonaste el repositorio. Las rutas de Windows pueden usar barras diagonales/o barras diagonales inversas dobles\\.
Cierra y reinicia completamente Claude Desktop después de guardar.
La primera vez que le preguntes a Claude algo sobre Viva Engage:
Se abre automáticamente una ventana del navegador con la página de inicio de sesión de Microsoft
Inicia sesión con tu cuenta de trabajo/educativa de Microsoft
Aprueba los permisos
El navegador mostrará "Login successful!" (¡Inicio de sesión correcto!)
Claude completa tu solicitud
Tu sesión se mantiene cifrada en tu máquina. Cuando reinicies Claude Desktop, es posible que debas iniciar sesión de nuevo.
Herramienta | Descripción |
| Obtener todas las redes de Viva Engage a las que perteneces |
| Listar todas las comunidades en tu red doméstica |
| Obtener detalles de una comunidad específica por ID |
| Obtener todas las publicaciones en una comunidad específica |
| Obtener todos los mensajes en un hilo de conversación |
| Buscar publicaciones en tu red doméstica |
| Publicar un nuevo mensaje en una comunidad |
| Responder a un hilo de conversación existente |
| Obtener tu feed personal de storyline de Viva Engage |
🔐 Tu propia aplicación de Azure | Cada usuario registra su propia aplicación: sin infraestructura compartida |
🔐 Tus propias credenciales | Inicias sesión con tu propia cuenta de Microsoft |
🔐 Almacenamiento de tokens cifrado | El token se cifra usando Windows DPAPI (o archivo plano en Mac/Linux) |
🔐 Sin secretos en el código | El ID de cliente y el ID de inquilino permanecen solo en tu archivo |
🔐 Permisos delegados | El servidor solo puede ver lo que ya puedes ver en Viva Engage |
🔐 Contraseña nunca tocada | Microsoft gestiona la autenticación por completo |
mcp-viva-engage/
├── src/
│ ├── auth/
│ │ └── auth.ts # Microsoft OAuth login with DPAPI encrypted cache
│ ├── yammerClient.ts # Viva Engage / Yammer API client
│ └── server.ts # MCP server and tool definitions
├── .env.example # Template — copy to .env and fill in your values
├── .gitignore # Prevents .env from being committed
├── package.json
├── tsconfig.json
└── README.md"Aprobación requerida" en el primer inicio de sesión
Tu organización requiere el consentimiento del administrador para nuevas aplicaciones. Pide a tu administrador de TI que apruebe la aplicación en el portal de Azure → Aplicaciones empresariales → busca
mcp-viva-engage→ Conceder consentimiento de administrador. Esta es una acción única.
El servidor no aparece en Claude Desktop
Cierra y reinicia completamente Claude Desktop después de editar el archivo de configuración. Verifica que la ruta a
dist/server.jssea correcta.
Se requiere inicio de sesión de nuevo después de reiniciar
El token cifrado puede haber caducado. Simplemente inicia sesión de nuevo; la sesión se almacenará en caché después de iniciar sesión.
Solo veo comunidades de la red doméstica
Esto es lo esperado; consulta la sección Limitación importante anterior. La API REST de Yammer solo admite el acceso a la red doméstica.
Problemas de ruta en Windows
Usa barras diagonales
C:/path/to/dist/server.jso barras diagonales inversas doblesC:\\path\\to\\dist\\server.jsen el archivo de configuración.
Solo red doméstica: las redes externas (por ejemplo, la comunidad de socios de Microsoft BC) no son accesibles a través de ninguna API pública de Microsoft. Consulta la explicación anterior.
Limitación de velocidad: la API de Yammer permite 10 solicitudes por usuario por aplicación cada 30 segundos.
Búsqueda de solo lectura: los resultados de búsqueda se limitan a lo que indexa Viva Engage.
[ ] Convertir en un conector remoto para que los usuarios no necesiten una configuración local
[ ] Añadir soporte de paginación para feeds de comunidades grandes
[ ] Soporte para el Administrador de credenciales de Windows para un almacenamiento de tokens aún más seguro
[ ] Admitir redes externas si Microsoft añade soporte de API en el futuro
MIT: consulta LICENSE para obtener más detalles.
Este es un proyecto de código abierto independiente y no está afiliado, respaldado ni apoyado por Microsoft o Viva Engage. Úsalo bajo tu propio riesgo.
Get all Viva Engage communities/groups the user is a member of in their home network
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It states it returns communities but lacks details on pagination, authentication requirements, or response shape. For a no-parameter tool, the description is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, clear and concise with no unnecessary words. Perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what it does. Could mention scope (home network) but that is already included. Complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in schema, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves all Viva Engage communities the user is a member of in their home network. Distinguishes from siblings like get_community_by_id (single community) and get_networks (networks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing all member communities, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_community_by_id for a specific community.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get details of a specific Viva Engage community by its ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | The ID of the community/group |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details,' which implies a read operation but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, side effects, or any required permissions. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that contains all essential information without any filler or repetition. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks any indication of the response format or fields returned. It could be more complete by mentioning what 'details' entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage—the parameter 'group_id' is described as 'The ID of the community/group' in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get details), the resource (Viva Engage community), and the method (by its ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_communities' which likely lists all communities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific community ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_communities' or 'get_community_messages'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all messages/posts in a specific Viva Engage community in the home network
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | The ID of the community/group |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation but omits details on pagination, sorting, filtering, authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the community is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part earns its place: verb, resource, community scope, and network qualification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose but lacks details on return format, limits, or ordering. It is sufficient for basic use but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes group_id as 'The ID of the community/group' (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond reaffirming the context. Baseline 3 applies; the mention of 'home network' adds minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'messages/posts', and the scope 'in a specific Viva Engage community in the home network'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_thread (single thread) and post_message (write operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_messages or get_thread. No explicit usage context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all Viva Engage networks the user belongs to
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only states operation without any behavioral traits like read-only, side effects, or rate limits. For a simple read, minimal but missing explicit safety cues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single straightforward sentence with zero waste. Front-loads the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simplest tool, description explains what it returns (all networks user belongs to). Could mention output format or authentication, but context is adequate for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has no parameters (0 params), so baseline is 4. Description adds no additional param info, which is acceptable since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly uses verb 'Get' and resource 'networks', specifying scope 'the user belongs to'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_communities which are different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear and siblings are distinct, so no immediate confusion. Still, lacks any usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the current user's Viva Engage storyline/personal feed
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only restates the function name. It doesn't disclose any behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, data freshness, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with no parameters, the description is adequate but could be improved by mentioning that it returns the feed for the authenticated user, especially since there is no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra semantics beyond confirming it's a parameterless call.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Viva Engage storyline/personal feed', which is distinct from sibling tools like get_communities or get_thread.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided, but the purpose is clear enough that the agent can infer it's for retrieving the current user's personal feed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all messages in a specific conversation thread
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes | The ID of the thread to retrieve |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, error handling, or rate limits. The 'get' verb implies reading but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information, but could be more structured with bullet points for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing crucial details: What does the output contain? Is there ordering or filtering? No output schema, so description should compensate. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter, so the schema already explains it. The description adds no further semantics beyond restating the parameter role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all messages in a specific thread, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_community_messages but could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_community_messages or search_messages. Missing context on prerequisites or exclusion cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Post a new message to a Viva Engage community
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | The ID of the community to post to | |
| body | Yes | The content of the message to post |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description must disclose side effects. Does not mention mutation, rate limits, formatting, or success/error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff. Efficient for a simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal description for a creation tool. No mention of return value, error cases, or community identification. With sibling reply_to_message, should differentiate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds no extra parameter context beyond 'post to a community', so baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Post a new message to a Viva Engage community'. Specific enough but lacks detail on message type and doesn't differentiate from sibling reply_to_message explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives like reply_to_message. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining group_id).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Reply to an existing message or conversation thread
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes | The ID of the message or thread to reply to | |
| body | Yes | The content of the reply |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description implies write operation but lacks detail on behavior (e.g., quotting, character limits).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for basic understanding but missing behavioral details that would aid an agent (e.g., markdown support, permissions).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'reply' and resource 'existing message or conversation thread'. Distinguishes from siblings like post_message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Does not specify when to use vs alternatives (e.g., post_message for new threads). No context on when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for posts and messages across all communities in the home network
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search term or question to search for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates search across all communities but omits critical details such as read-only nature, rate limits, response format, pagination, or authentication requirements, which are essential for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no superfluous information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but lacks behavioral context such as search behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, full-text), result limits, or how results are structured. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the search scope (across all communities) but does not enhance the parameter's meaning beyond the schema's 'search term or question'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for posts and messages across all communities in the home network, providing a specific verb and resource scope. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_community_messages or get_thread, which operate on narrower contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The scope is implied by contrasting with siblings (e.g., get_community_messages for a specific community), but the description does not state exclusions or provide direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0get_communitiesget_community_by_idget_community_messagesget_networksget_storyline_feedget_threadpost_messagereply_to_messagesearch_messagesScored across 9 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: communities are separate from messages, threads, feeds, and networks. No apparent overlap between tools like get_community_messages and get_thread, as one fetches all posts in a community and the other retrieves a specific conversation thread.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_communities, post_message, search_messages). No mixing of styles or vague verbs.
With 9 tools covering communities, messages, threads, networks, feeds, and search, the count is well-scoped for a social engagement platform. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set covers core read and write operations for communities and messages, including posting and replying. However, it lacks update and delete functionality for messages, which is a minor gap for full lifecycle management.
Connect Claude to your Platform7n workspaces — chat, links, and tasks. One-click OAuth.
Your own WhatsApp in Claude and ChatGPT: read chats, draft replies, send messages you approve.
Your professional network in Claude — search contacts, log notes, and send warm intros.
LinkedIn outreach from Claude with a human veto. Gigi researches each prospect and drafts the connection request and follow-ups; from Claude you review, edit and approve drafts, triage replies, create and manage campaigns, and read outreach reports. Nothing is sent without an approval, every write tool asks first, and the connector cannot bypass LinkedIn caps or sending windows. Sign-in: OAuth with your Gigi account. Setup: https://usegigi.ai/connect-claude?ref=glama
