Extend MCP

List splitters

list_splitters

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the workspace's splitters, newest first (split group). Fetch a specific one's config with get_splitter. Follow any llmContext guidance included in results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size (default 25).
`sortBy`	No	Default updatedAt.
`sortDir`	No	Default desc.
`environment`	Yes	"TEST" = the Test (development) environment, "PRODUCTION" = live. Must match a granted target from get_me (an API key pins one environment).
`workspaceId`	Yes	Target workspace (ws_...). Must be a granted workspace — get_me lists the accepted values.
`nextPageToken`	No	Opaque cursor from the previous page.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`hasMore`	Yes
`llmContext`	No
`nextPageToken`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying default newest-first ordering and by warning that results may carry llmContext guidance that should be followed, which is genuinely useful for an agent.

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 sentences contain the core function, default ordering, an explicit pointer to get_splitter, and a unique instruction to follow llmContext guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with an output schema present, complete schema documentation for all six parameters, and annotations covering its behavior. The description adds the essential cross-reference to get_splitter and the llmContext instruction, making it fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not repeat parameter details, but 'newest first' and 'split group' subtly contextualize sort defaults and scope. No additional parameter semantics are needed because the schema fully documents each field.

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 operation: 'List the workspace's splitters' with a specific default ordering, 'newest first (split group).' It also distinguishes itself from the related get_splitter tool by explicitly directing config-specific fetches there, making the intended use unambiguous.

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 context for when to use this tool versus get_splitter: list for a collection, get_splitter for a specific config. It instructs following any llmContext guidance in results, aiding downstream behavior. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like list_splitter_versions, but the tool name and 'splitters' noun make the primary use clear.

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

All Extend MCP 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource+action combination, and the descriptions actively disambiguate potential overlaps (e.g., extract_data vs parse_document, detect_form_fields vs edit_pdf, get_file vs get_file_upload). The consistent verb_noun prefix pattern makes the semantic boundary of every tool immediately recognizable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant verb_noun pattern is highly consistent across all nine domains (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, run_*, get_*_run, get_*_batch, publish_*_version). Minor deviations exist: deploy_workflow_version vs publish_*_version for the same freeze-a-draft concept, and get_form_detection_run doesn't mirror its detect_form_fields counterpart.

Tool Count2/5

86 tools is a very heavy agent-facing surface, well past the 25+ threshold. The count is inflated by the near-identical 13-tool lifecycle repeated across extract, classify, and split (each with list/get/create/update/publish/runs/batches/versions), and while each tool has a distinct purpose, the sheer volume makes selection harder.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycles are thoroughly covered: create → update → publish → run (single and batch) → poll → cancel → delete-run → list runs/versions. Notable gaps include no delete tool for extractors, classifiers, splitters, workflows, or evaluation sets, and edit/form-detection runs have no list endpoint (documented workaround: keep run IDs). These are hygenic gaps that don't block primary workflows.

Resources

Need Help?