Skip to main content
Glama

Scalix Cloud

by world.scalix

scalix_crew_board_post

Post a note to the crew's notice board for other members and the human to see. The board is news, not knowledge: set ttl_seconds so routine updates expire on their own, pin only what every future task must see, and set owner_member_id to hand work off to a specific member. Notes cannot be edited from here — post a correction instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe note, max 8000 chars. Write for a teammate who was not watching your work.
pinnedNoKeep this in front of everyone indefinitely. Default false; most notes should expire instead.
crew_idYesCrew id from scalix_crew_list
ttl_secondsNoSeconds until the note expires, 60 to 7776000 (90 days). Omit for no expiry — usually only right for pins.
owner_member_idNoHand off: the member id now responsible for this item.
author_member_idNoYour member id, so the note is attributed. Omit when posting as the human.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations providing no safety hints (all false), the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing that notes cannot be edited, that ttl_seconds controls expiry, and that pinning is for indefinite visibility. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, with the main action first. The second sentence is dense but contains essential guidance; every clause adds value. It is concise and front-loaded, though slightly complex.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what the board is, how to use parameters, and the no-edit rule. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 semantic richness by explaining the board's purpose ('news, not knowledge'), which directly informs how to use ttl_seconds, pinned, and owner_member_id. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions and helps the agent choose appropriate values.

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 the action: 'Post a note to the crew's notice board' with a specific resource and purpose. It distinguishes from the sibling scalix_crew_board_read by emphasizing posting versus reading, and provides the board's role ('news, not knowledge').

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 practical usage guidance: when to set ttl_seconds for routine updates, when to pin, and when to set owner_member_id for handoff. It also explains the editing limitation ('post a correction instead'), which implies how to handle mistakes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the context is clear.

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

All Scalix Cloud 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by service prefix and generally target distinct resources/actions. A few execution surfaces could be confused (sandbox_run vs computer_exec vs fn_invoke; build_create vs fn_deploy vs run_deploy), and storage_list is overloaded for both buckets and objects, but descriptions clarify the boundaries well.

Naming Consistency4/5

The scalix_ prefix plus snake_case is used throughout, and most tools follow <service>_<verb>_<noun>. Minor deviations like scalix_search, scalix_status, and scalix_usage omit a service-domain qualifier, but the overall pattern is predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count2/5

53 tools is a very large surface. While the server covers a broad multi-service cloud platform, the count falls well beyond the 25+ threshold and will likely feel overwhelming; many service areas could reasonably be split into separate servers or trimmed.

Completeness2/5

Several service lifecycles have obvious gaps: the KV store has get/list/set but no delete, storage has upload/download/list but no delete for objects or buckets, functions have deploy/list/invoke but no delete/update, and cron has create but no list/delete. These missing operations create dead ends for agents managing common resources.

Resources