Skip to main content
Glama

List Compositions

list_compositions
Read-onlyIdempotent

List every composition (video) in a project, with its format and which one is active. Use a returned compositionId with create_render(compositionId=...) to render a specific video, or apply_composition to edit it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "list_compositions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesprojectId (path).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds output-oriented context by mentioning format and the active composition, but it does not add auth, rate-limit, pagination, or error behavior beyond that.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose before the follow-up usage guidance. There is no wasted text, and the structure makes the tool's role immediately clear.

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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains scope, response highlights, and how the returned compositionId can be used next.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single projectId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description implies project scoping with 'in a project', but it does not add projectId identifier format or deeper meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 clearly scoped resource: every composition (video) in a project. It also names what the response includes, format and active composition, which distinguishes it from the singular get_composition sibling.

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?

It gives useful downstream guidance: use a returned compositionId with create_render to render or apply_composition to edit. That clearly frames this as a discovery/list step, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_composition or state when not to use this tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.