Skip to main content
Glama

List remote machines

list_remote_machines
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the teammate machines you may start a Claude Code run on: machine handle, folder names, profile, approval and expiry. Empty unless a teammate listed you.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_remote_machines"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the returned fields and the condition under which the result is empty (no teammate has listed you), which preempts confusion about blank output.

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?

A single sentence with a colon-introduced field list; the scope ('machines you may start a run on') is front-loaded and every clause carries information. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: the shape of returned records and the empty-result rule. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or how to act on a returned machine, but nothing essential is absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the call itself; baseline applies. Schema description coverage is 100% and the call is parameterless.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List the teammate machines') and scopes it precisely to machines you may start a Claude Code run on, plus the fields returned (handle, folders, profile, approval, expiry). It does not name the sibling it pairs with (start_remote_agent), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'you may start a Claude Code run on' implies this is a discovery step before invoking a run, and 'Empty unless a teammate listed you' sets an expectation about empty results. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative is given.

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