Meridian

List Features

features_list

Read-only

Lists an app's Plan Builder feature catalog: feature_id, handle, key (pass this to the @the-meridian/sdk isEnabled("<key>") call), name, description, type (boolean or number), and which plans grant the feature and with what value (a numeric limit for number-type features, null for boolean-type). Takes the app_id returned by apps_list.

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": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>"
    },
    "name": "features_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app_id`	Yes	The app uuid returned by `apps_list`.
`organization_id`	No	An organisation uuid or slug. When supplied, `app_id` is resolved within that organisation and may be a slug instead of a uuid, mirroring the Meridian web app.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context by explaining the per-plan grant semantics and that number-type features carry a numeric limit while boolean-type carry null. It does not mention pagination or result size, but no paging parameters exist so that gap is minor.

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?

A single dense passage that front-loads the resource and then maps each returned field to its meaning, with no filler sentences. The inline field list is long but every item carries information an agent needs to interpret the response.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and discharges it by naming each field and its type semantics. For a read-only two-parameter list tool this is close to complete, missing only guidance on how results relate to sibling plan/feature tooling.

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 both app_id and organization_id are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the app_id provenance already present in the schema and says nothing about organization_id (slug resolution), so it adds no meaning beyond structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists an app's Plan Builder feature catalog') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling plans_list, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives a prerequisite ('Takes the app_id returned by apps_list') and implies downstream use by pointing at the isEnabled("<key>") SDK call. It offers no when-not guidance and never addresses plans_list as an alternative for plan/grant questions.

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

All Meridian tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?