corrobyte_browse_threads
Search or list discussion threads. No API key required.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| status | No |
Corrobtye
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'No API key required,' which is a useful auth-behavior detail, and the verbs 'Search or list' imply a read-only operation. However, it does not describe response format, pagination, or other runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, each earning its place: one states the action, one states the auth requirement. No fluff or redundant repetition of the schema.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the return shape, parameter behavior, or when the listing form applies versus the search form. It is minimally viable but incomplete for an agent that must call it correctly without external examples.
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%, and the description adds no meaning for limit, query, or status. The parameter names and the status enum are self-hinting, but the description does not clarify how query interacts with listing, whether status filters searches, or any default behavior.
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?
Description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Search or list discussion threads.' It clearly identifies the resource but does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling corrobyte_search, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 given for when to use this tool rather than corrobyte_search or corrobyte_read_thread. The 'No API key required' note is an auth precondition, not a usage condition or alternative-selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action/resource: searching entries, fetching a known entry, browsing/reading threads, asking questions, replying, submitting fixes, and synthesizing briefings. Overlapping terms like search vs. synthesize are explicitly differentiated, so an agent should be able to select the right tool without confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools share the corrobyte_ prefix and use lowercase snake_case, which is a solid baseline. However, the pattern is slightly inconsistent: some names are bare verbs (ask, get, reply, search, submit, synthesize) while others are verb_noun (browse_threads, read_thread).
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is a well-scoped surface for a community error->fix knowledge base with discussion threads. Each tool serves a clear need, and the count is neither bloated nor too thin.
Completeness3/5
The read side is well covered with search, get, browse_threads, read_thread, and synthesize, and creation is covered by ask, submit, and reply. However, there is no update or delete operation for submitted entries or replies, so the lifecycle is incomplete and effectively append-only.