Skip to main content
Glama

apify_actors

Read-only

List the actors of THIS account (not the public Store).

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": "apify_actors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
limitNo
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
offsetNo
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful account scoping, but it says nothing about pagination, authorization, or return behavior beyond the one exclusion.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The account scope and public-store exclusion are stated immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only listing tool, the description is adequate to identify the operation. However, with no output schema and no mention of pagination or return shape, it leaves operational details for the agent to infer.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description does not explain any of the seven parameters, including how account context is selected or how limit and offset affect the listing. Schema coverage is only 71%, with limit and offset left undocumented, so the description does not compensate for those gaps.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List the actors." It also scopes the operation to "THIS account (not the public Store)," which clearly distinguishes it from the public-store sibling tool.

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 exclusion "not the public Store" gives clear guidance that this is for the caller's own account actors rather than public search. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool such as apify_store_search, so the routing is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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