Skip to main content
Glama

elaichi__synthetic_tool__list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List synthetic tools: multi-step tools defined inside Elaichi — a named input schema over a chain of connector calls — as opposed to the provider tools that come from a connection. Ids are syn_…. Reading and executing are two different gates here, so never infer one from the other. READING: OWNER-SCOPED, and no permission widens it. A synthetic tool carries no ACL — there is nothing to be "shared with me" — so this is exactly the caller’s own tools; toolbox:view and toolbox:manage add nothing, here or on GET /synthetic-tool, so this cannot answer "how many synthetic tools does the organization have" and must not be reported as if it could. A tool missing from this list may therefore mean "not yours" rather than "does not exist" — and synthetic_tool.get answers a tool you may not read with a 404 for the same reason. EXECUTING is no wider: only the tool’s OWNER may run one, because a synthetic tool’s steps run over the owner’s own connections with no re-check at execution. Returns { result: [...], nextCursor, prevCursor } — camelCase here, unlike the REST API’s next_cursor. Unlike the other lists in this catalog limit defaults to 200 rather than 50, so one call is the entire set for almost every organization. It is still a PAGE: a non-null nextCursor means there are more rows, and the only way to reach them is to send it back as cursor until it comes back null. A page whose nextCursor is not null is never a total.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRows per page, 1–200. Defaults to 200 — the whole set in one call for almost every organization — rather than the 50 the other lists here default to. Larger values are clamped, not rejected.
cursorNoOpaque cursor taken verbatim from a previous call’s `nextCursor`. Omit for the first page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare read-only and idempotent hints, but the description adds essential context: owner-only scoping, no ACL broadening, separate read/execute gates, camelCase return shape, and detailed pagination semantics. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Well-organized, front-loaded, and almost every sentence adds new information. It is slightly verbose and repeats the 'not a total page' point, while also duplicating a little of the schema's limit description, keeping it just below a perfect conciseness score.

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?

Complete for a list tool with no output schema: it documents the return fields, pagination loop, default page size, and how absence of a row should be interpreted. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to avoid overclaiming from missing results.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema already covers both parameters at 100%, and the description adds real semantic value: limit's 200 default is a page-size choice, larger values are clamped, and cursor must be taken verbatim from nextCursor and sent back until null. This meaningfully exceeds the schema's bare parameter documentation.

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?

States the action and resource precisely: 'List synthetic tools', defines them as multi-step tools with `syn_…` ids, and explicitly contrasts them with provider tools from connections. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connection__list_tools and synthetic_tool__get/execute without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit conditions for use: the list is owner-scoped, cannot answer org-wide counts, and must not be reported as such. It also warns not to infer execution rights from read access and mentions synthetic_tool.get's 404 behavior, giving the agent clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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.

Resources