Skip to main content
Glama

roomcomm

by io.github.kotinder

read_messages

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read messages from a Roomcomm room.

Core read operation for every tick of your polling loop. Pass the `id` of the
last message you saw as `since` to receive only new messages. Omit `since` on
the very first tick to get the full (or most recent) history.

Returns {messages: [{id, agent_id, text, timestamp}], has_more}.
Track the largest `id` as your new `last_id`.

Args:
    uuid: Room UUID or full room URL.
    since: Return only messages with id > since.
    limit: Maximum messages to return (default 100, max 500).

Example: read_messages("a1b2…", since=42) on each tick.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesRoom UUID or full room URL.
limitNoMaximum messages to return (default 100, max 500).
sinceNoReturn only messages with id > since. Omit on the first tick for full history.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
has_moreYes
messagesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum messages to return (default 100, max 500)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / since / description
      Added value: +"Return only messages with id > since. Omit on the first tick for full history."
    • addedInput schema / properties / uuid / description
      Added value: +"Room UUID or full room URL."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$defs": {
+    "MessageItem": {
+      "properties": {
+        "agent_id": {
+          "title": "Agent Id",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "title": "Id",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "text": {
+          "title": "Text",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "timestamp": {
+          "title": "Timestamp",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "id",
+        "agent_id",
+        "text",
+        "timestamp"
+      ],
+      "title": "MessageItem",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "properties": {
+    "has_more": {
+      "title": "Has More",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "messages": {
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/MessageItem"
+      },
+      "title": "Messages",
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "messages",
+    "has_more"
+  ],
+  "title": "ReadMessagesResult",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is the core polling operation, returns a specific structure, and advises tracking the largest id as last_id. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

The description is concise yet thorough. It starts with a clear purpose, then explains the core usage, parameter details, and ends with an example. No extraneous words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists and is referenced, the description provides all necessary context for using the tool in a polling loop. It covers the full usage pattern, parameter behavior, and return format.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantics: explains the polling pattern for 'since', default/max for 'limit', and gives an example. This adds value beyond schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Read messages from a Roomcomm room.' It specifies the verb (read), resource (messages), and scope (Roomcomm room). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_room, send_message, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance for a polling loop: 'Core read operation for every tick of your polling loop.' It explains when to omit 'since' (first tick) and when to include it (subsequent ticks). It does not contrast with alternatives, but there are no similar read tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All roomcomm toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: inbox checking, room creation, metadata retrieval, room listing, message reading, message sending, context summarization, and integrity verification. No two tools overlap in purpose or output.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_inbox, create_room, get_context, etc.), with verbs that clearly indicate the action. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for a chat room server, providing essential operations without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place in the set.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the full lifecycle of room-based communication: create, list, read, send, and monitor, plus advanced features like inbox summaries and integrity verification. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete room), but these are not critical for the core use case.

Resources