Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_pin_message

Pin or unpin a message in a HAOps discussion to highlight important content or reduce clutter.

Instructions

Pin or unpin a discussion message.

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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "discussionId": "<discussionId>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>",
      "pinned": "<pinned>"
    },
    "name": "haops_pin_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pinnedYestrue to pin, false to unpin
verboseNoIf true, return the full API response instead of the compact summary (default: false)
messageIdYesUUID of the message to pin/unpin
projectSlugYesThe project slug (URL identifier)
discussionIdYesUUID of the discussion

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic action, omitting details like whether pinning is visible to all, permission requirements, or side effects such as notifications.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. It could be expanded with useful details without losing conciseness.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the effect of pinning, the need for valid discussion/message IDs, or any expected outcomes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning; it does not clarify parameter relationships or usage patterns. Score at baseline.

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 clearly states the action (pin or unpin) and the resource (discussion message). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like haops_edit_message or haops_delete_message, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., 'use this when you want to highlight a message'), or when not to use it.

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