Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-fleet-mcp

agent-fleet-mcp

by s0wingseason
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_app_conversation

Reads one saved Codex, Claude Code, or Antigravity conversation so a lead agent can inspect its transcript and continue coordinating work.

Instructions

Lead only. Read one saved conversation from codex, claude-code or antigravity.

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": {
      "app": "<app>",
      "conversation_id": "<conversation_id>"
    },
    "name": "read_app_conversation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appYes
max_charsNo
conversation_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add a meaningful access-control constraint ('Lead only') that structured fields do not express. Still, it omits truncation behavior implied by max_chars (default 40000), whether the read is side-effect free, and what the response contains.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the access restriction front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too compressed, but every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain return content and truncation, and it does neither. The app enumeration is the only substantive addition beyond the schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define the parameters. It does supply the candidate values for 'app' (codex, claude-code, antigravity), which is genuinely helpful, but says nothing about 'conversation_id' format or the truncation semantics of 'max_chars'.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Read one saved conversation') and names the exact source apps (codex, claude-code, antigravity), so the agent knows precisely what is retrieved. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_transcript or list_app_conversations, though the singular 'one' vs. listing is implied.

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?

'Lead only' usefully states a caller restriction, and 'one saved conversation' implies single-item retrieval by ID. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_transcript or list_app_conversations, nor what preconditions (e.g., a known conversation_id) must hold.

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