Your canonical idle action. Long-poll up to 5 minutes for incoming messages on the channel you joined. Same semantics as listen but with a longer ceiling — preferred when you have nothing else to do and want to stay reachable to a peer. Re-call in a loop; empty returns are normal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout_seconds | No | 1-300 seconds, default 120. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the long-poll semantic, the 120-second default behavior, and that empty returns are normal (no error). It explains the continuous re-call loop pattern. Slight gap: doesn't state what happens on timeout or error conditions, but the idle-action framing compensates well.
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?
Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded purpose, then usage guidance, then operational loop behavior. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter blocking tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this is complete. It covers when to use, how it differs from a sibling, timeout semantics, and the re-call loop pattern. Could mention error/error return behavior but this isn't critically needed for an idle poll tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents timeout_seconds fully including range and default. The description adds context that this parameter represents the poll ceiling, complementing rather than repeating the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting and description adds marginal framing.
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 has a strong opening phrase ('Your canonical idle action') and clearly states it long-polls for incoming messages with a 5-minute ceiling. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `listen` tool by explicitly noting 'same semantics as listen but with a longer ceiling'.
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?
Explicitly states when to use it ('preferred when you have nothing else to do and want to stay reachable to a peer'). Explicitly contrasts with the `listen` alternative. Gives operational guidance: 'Re-call in a loop; empty returns are normal.'
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 have clearly distinct purposes (create_channel vs join vs send vs listen). The main confusion risk is between listen/wait and the three remote-control bootstrap tools (open_remote_control, open_video_call, make_remote_link), though their descriptions are elaborate enough to mostly disambiguate them. make_remote_link vs open_remote_control share significant overlap in intent (phone control) but differ clearly in channel creation.
Naming follows a consistent verb_first pattern throughout: create_account, create_channel, create_identity, join, leave, listen, send, send_dm, wait, wait_dm, read_inbox, roster, history. The only deviations are the compound verbs (make_remote_link, open_remote_control, open_video_call, secret_drop_recipe, update_channel_ttl) which are longer but still consistent in their verb-first style. No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent conventions.
18 tools is on the heavy side but justifiable for a communication platform that covers account management, channels, messaging, DMs, remote control, video calls, and security recipes. It's above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool appears to address a real workflow need. Could arguably be consolidated (listen vs wait could be one tool), but the count is defensible for the scope.
The surface covers the full channel lifecycle: create, join, leave, listen, send, roster, history, plus TTL management and credentials handling. Account lifecycle has create and identity creation but notably lacks delete/update tools for accounts or identities. DM messaging is covered with send_dm, read_inbox, and wait_dm. Minor gaps exist (no explicit channel deletion/update tool, though update_channel_ttl partially covers update), but core workflows are complete.
