Сервер протокола контекста модели (MCP) с открытым исходным кодом, который подключает Claude AI к Viva Engage (Yammer). Просматривайте сообщества вашей домашней сети, ищите публикации, читайте обсуждения и публикуйте ответы — и все это через естественный диалог с Claude.
Создано Pranav Joshi
После подключения вы можете спрашивать Claude о следующем:
«В каких сообществах Viva Engage я состою?»
«Найди публикации об ошибках в Business Central»
«Какие последние обсуждения были в сообществе разработчиков?»
«Ответь на эту ветку обсуждения так...»
«Покажи мою ленту Viva Engage»
Related MCP server: linkedin-mcp-server
Этот MCP-сервер работает только с вашей домашней сетью (основная организационная сеть, привязанная к вашим учетным данным).
Почему он не может получить доступ к внешним сетям?
Viva Engage поддерживает два типа сетей:
Домашняя сеть — ваша основная организация (например, Viva Engage вашей компании)
Внешние сети — сообщества, размещенные другими организациями, в которых вы являетесь гостем (например, сообщество Microsoft BC Partners)
REST API Yammer (www.yammer.com/api/v1) возвращает данные только из вашей домашней сети, независимо от того, какие параметры или токены используются. Для внешних сетей требуются файлы cookie сеанса браузера, которые доступны только после полноценного входа через веб-интерфейс — это невозможно воспроизвести только с помощью вызовов API.
Более новый Graph API от Microsoft (graph.microsoft.com) также не поддерживает внешние сети — он работает только с сетями в собственном режиме внутри вашего клиента.
Это ограничение API Microsoft, а не ограничение данного MCP-сервера. Если в будущем Microsoft расширит свой API для поддержки внешних сетей, этот сервер можно будет обновить для их поддержки.
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 questionКонфиденциальность: Каждый пользователь регистрирует свое собственное приложение Azure и использует свои собственные учетные данные Microsoft. Никакие данные не проходят через инфраструктуру кого-либо еще. Ваш токен входа хранится в зашифрованном виде только на вашем компьютере.
Node.js версии 18 или выше
Рабочая/учебная учетная запись Microsoft с доступом к Viva Engage
Это разовая настройка (около 10 минут). Вы регистрируете свое собственное приложение под своей учетной записью Microsoft. Никто другой не может использовать ваше приложение — оно привязано только к вашим учетным данным.
Перейдите на portal.azure.com и войдите в систему с помощью своей рабочей/учебной учетной записи Microsoft
Найдите «Регистрация приложений» (App registrations) → нажмите «+ Новая регистрация»
Заполните:
Имя: mcp-viva-engage (или любое другое на ваш вкус)
Поддерживаемые типы учетных записей: Несколько клиентов Entra ID → выберите Разрешить все клиенты
URI перенаправления:
Платформа = Общедоступный клиент/собственный (мобильный и настольный)
URI = http://localhost
Нажмите «Зарегистрировать»
На странице обзора скопируйте и сохраните оба этих значения:
Идентификатор приложения (клиента)
Идентификатор каталога (клиента)
На левой боковой панели нажмите «Разрешения API»
Нажмите «+ Добавить разрешение» → перейдите на вкладку «Все API» → найдите «Yammer»
Нажмите «Yammer» → нажмите «Делегированные разрешения»
Отметьте эти четыре разрешения:
✅ user_impersonation
✅ Community.Read.All
✅ EngagementConversation.ReadWrite.All
✅ Storyline.ReadWrite.All
Нажмите «Добавить разрешения»
Примечание для рабочих/учебных учетных записей: ИТ-администратору вашей организации может потребоваться предоставить согласие для этого приложения, прежде чем вы сможете войти в систему в первый раз. Это разовый шаг. Вы можете отправить запрос на одобрение прямо с экрана входа при первом запуске сервера.
# Clone the repo
git clone https://github.com/pranav4186/mcp-viva-engage.git
cd mcp-viva-engage
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build
npm run buildСкопируйте пример файла env:
# Windows
copy .env.example .env
# Mac/Linux
cp .env.example .envОткройте .env и вставьте свои значения с Шага 1:
AZURE_CLIENT_ID=your-application-client-id-here
AZURE_TENANT_ID=your-directory-tenant-id-hereВажно: Никогда не добавляйте файл
.envв репозиторий GitHub. Он уже добавлен в.gitignore, чтобы предотвратить это.
Откройте файл конфигурации Claude Desktop:
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Mac: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Добавьте сервер viva-engage в раздел 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"
}
}
}
}Замените
C:/path/to/mcp-viva-engageна фактический путь, по которому вы клонировали репозиторий. В путях Windows можно использовать прямые слэши/или двойные обратные слэши\\.
Полностью закройте и перезапустите Claude Desktop после сохранения.
Когда вы впервые спросите Claude что-то о Viva Engage:
Автоматически откроется окно браузера со страницей входа Microsoft
Войдите в систему с помощью своей рабочей/учебной учетной записи Microsoft
Одобрите разрешения
В браузере появится сообщение «Вход выполнен успешно!»
Claude выполнит ваш запрос
Ваш сеанс хранится в зашифрованном виде на вашем компьютере. При перезапуске Claude Desktop может потребоваться войти снова.
Инструмент | Описание |
| Получить все сети Viva Engage, в которых вы состоите |
| Список всех сообществ в вашей домашней сети |
| Получить подробную информацию о конкретном сообществе по ID |
| Получить все публикации в конкретном сообществе |
| Получить все сообщения в ветке обсуждения |
| Поиск публикаций по всей домашней сети |
| Опубликовать новое сообщение в сообществе |
| Ответить на существующую ветку обсуждения |
| Получить вашу личную ленту Viva Engage |
🔐 Ваше собственное приложение Azure | Каждый пользователь регистрирует свое приложение — никакой общей инфраструктуры |
🔐 Ваши собственные учетные данные | Вы входите в систему со своей учетной записью Microsoft |
🔐 Зашифрованное хранилище токенов | Токен зашифрован с помощью Windows DPAPI (или обычного файла на Mac/Linux) |
🔐 Никаких секретов в коде | ID клиента и ID арендатора остаются только в вашем локальном файле |
🔐 Делегированные разрешения | Сервер видит только то, что вы уже можете видеть в Viva Engage |
🔐 Пароль не затрагивается | Microsoft полностью берет на себя аутентификацию |
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«Требуется одобрение» при первом входе
Ваша организация требует согласия администратора для новых приложений. Попросите ИТ-администратора одобрить приложение на портале Azure → Корпоративные приложения → найдите
mcp-viva-engage→ Предоставить согласие администратора. Это разовое действие.
Сервер не отображается в Claude Desktop
Полностью закройте и перезапустите Claude Desktop после редактирования файла конфигурации. Убедитесь, что путь к
dist/server.jsуказан верно.
После перезапуска снова требуется вход
Зашифрованный токен мог истечь. Просто войдите снова — сеанс будет кэширован после входа.
Видны только сообщества домашней сети
Это ожидаемое поведение — см. раздел Важное ограничение выше. REST API Yammer поддерживает доступ только к домашней сети.
Проблемы с путями в Windows
Используйте прямые слэши
C:/path/to/dist/server.jsили двойные обратные слэшиC:\\path\\to\\dist\\server.jsв файле конфигурации.
Только домашняя сеть — Внешние сети (например, сообщество Microsoft BC Partners) недоступны через какой-либо публичный API Microsoft. См. объяснение выше.
Ограничение частоты запросов — API Yammer разрешает 10 запросов на пользователя на приложение каждые 30 секунд.
Поиск только для чтения — Результаты поиска ограничены тем, что индексирует Viva Engage.
[ ] Преобразовать в удаленный коннектор, чтобы пользователям не требовалась локальная настройка
[ ] Добавить поддержку пагинации для больших лент сообществ
[ ] Поддержка Диспетчера учетных данных Windows для еще более безопасного хранения токенов
[ ] Поддержка внешних сетей, если Microsoft добавит поддержку API в будущем
MIT — подробности см. в LICENSE.
Это независимый проект с открытым исходным кодом, который не связан, не одобрен и не поддерживается Microsoft или Viva Engage. Используйте на свой страх и риск.
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
