Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OpenSwitchboard

by ai.openswitchboard
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List my wants and haves

list_intents
Read-onlyIdempotent

List your human's own wants and haves, and their lifecycle states. Each one comes back with its side — "looking_for" or "offering" — under listing.type. Each one that is still up also says how many people have come forward about it and how many are waiting their turn behind them, with one ready sentence written for your human: lead with that sentence and never read a field name aloud. Those two counts are the whole of what this tool knows about those people. Everything else about them — whose move it is on each, any figure on the table, any message waiting to be collected — comes from check_in, so answer "has anyone turned up?" from here and anything past it from there.

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_intents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description spends its words on what the annotations cannot say: that each item carries `listing.type` with looking_for/offering, that still-active items include a came-forward count and a waiting-behind count, and that those counts are the entire extent of what the tool knows about those people. It also prescribes output handling (lead with the ready sentence, never read a field name aloud), which is real behavioral guidance beyond structured data.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then adds field-level details and finally the boundary against check_in; every sentence adds information. The final sentence is a long, clause-heavy construction that takes a reread, but nothing is filler.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the entire load and does it: it enumerates the notable fields returned, states what the counts do and do not cover, and hands off the rest to check_in. Nothing an agent needs to call it or narrate results is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to add. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the empty schema does not support.

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 a specific verb and resource ("List your human's own wants and haves, and their lifecycle states") and pins down the scope as the caller's own listings rather than a shared list. It also names the sibling that covers the adjacent question (check_in), so an agent can place it in the tool family without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: answer "has anyone turned up?" from this tool, and anything past that (whose move it is, figures, pending messages) from check_in. It does not address the other list-reading siblings (read_lists, read_manual), so coverage of alternatives is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All OpenSwitchboard toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources