Markdown by mdedit.ai

Get document presence

get_presence

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the people and agents currently present in a collaborative document. Accepts natural workspace names and document titles; internal routing identifiers are optional.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`articleId`	No	Internal document identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to the document by title.
`workspaceId`	No	Internal workspace identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to a workspace by name or has only one workspace.
`articleTitle`	No	Human-visible document title. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal document identifier.
`workspaceName`	No	Human-visible workspace name. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal workspace identifier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`articleId`	Yes
`workspaceId`	Yes
`participants`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by stating that presence includes both people and agents and that it reflects current state, which goes beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 focused sentences, with the action and subject front-loaded and no wasted wording. The second sentence efficiently conveys the key routing guidance without elaboration.

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?

For a simple, read-only presence-listing tool with a full output schema and fully described optional parameters, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns conceptually, how to reference documents and workspaces, and when internal identifiers are unnecessary.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the schema carries most of the parameter semantics. The description adds a useful summary of preferring natural names over internal identifiers, but it does not materially extend what the schema says.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('people and agents currently present in a collaborative document'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also distinct from sibling tools such as get_publish_status or read_article, since presence is a unique concept.

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 gives clear practical guidance: prefer natural workspace names and document titles, and treat internal identifiers as optional. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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

All Markdown by mdedit.ai tools Inspect

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes across article CRUD, review workflows, publishing, and conversion/export. Minor confusion can arise between convert_document and start_article_export (and their corresponding status checkers), but the descriptions explicitly differentiate arbitrary content conversion from exporting stored documents. The render_article tool's broad contextual wording overlaps conceptually with several actions, though its actual function (opening the reader) is unique.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 22 tool names follow a strict snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as list_articles, accept_suggestion, start_article_export, and unpublish_article. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or camelCase outliers, making the naming highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the server sits above the ideal 3-15 range and feels somewhat heavy for an MCP surface. The inclusion of record_article_app_event, a component-only telemetry tool with no agent-facing value, adds to this heaviness. However, the breadth of the domain—documents, collaboration, publishing, and conversion—largely justifies the count.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers article lifecycle, review threads, publishing, export/conversion, and presence well, covering most common workflows. A notable gap is the lack of any delete_article or trash operation, leaving no way to remove documents. Additionally, updates are limited to anchored edits via edit_article, with no direct full-content replacement option.

Resources

Need Help?