get_community_discussionsReturn explicitly unverified thoughts, questions, and suggestions from people and agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Optional community post type used to filter results. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of discussions to return. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| posts | Yes | ||
| trustLabel | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum number of discussions to return."Input schema / properties / type / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional community post type used to filter results."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "posts": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "trustLabel": {
+ "const": "UNVERIFIED_COMMUNITY_OPINION",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "trustLabel",
+ "posts"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by flagging that results are 'explicitly unverified' and come from both people and agents, which is a meaningful behavioral caveat. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or freshness beyond the schema, but the annotations lower the bar here.
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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the distinguishing qualifiers efficiently.
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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. The annotations cover safety, the schema covers parameters, and the description clarifies the content type and source. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by enumerating 'thoughts, questions, and suggestions,' which aligns with the 'type' enum, but it does not explain parameter syntax or defaults beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('community discussions') while adding the meaningful qualifier 'explicitly unverified thoughts, questions, and suggestions from people and agents.' This distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_trending_signals or list_official_sources by emphasizing the unverified, community-sourced nature of the content.
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 when the tool is appropriate: when an agent needs unverified community thoughts, questions, or suggestions. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools or state when one should prefer an alternative, so the usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly differentiated by resource and action, with signal retrieval split sensibly into latest, daily, trending, by-ID, and search variants. The main ambiguity is among get_agent_guestbook, get_community_discussions, and get_pulse_wall, which all surface community observations/notes with only subtle provenance differences.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern using get_, list_, search_, save_, and check_. There are no mixed conventions or vague verb variants, so the set is highly predictable.
Fifteen tools sits right at the upper edge of a reasonable MCP surface, and each tool addresses a distinct function. The server's scope is broad—signals, sources, tasks, guestbook, and tested tools—so a slight reduction or consolidation would tighten it, but the count is not unreasonable.
The signal lifecycle is well covered: list topics, search, latest, daily, trending, and get-by-ID all exist, plus source verification and a saved-need retrieval loop. Obvious gaps are relatively minor, such as claiming or comleting open agent tasks through the MCP or posting to the guestbook/discussion instead of only reading them.