Skip to main content
Glama

List my cafés

list_my_cafes
Read-onlyIdempotent

The cafés and branches this person can see, their role, currency, time zone and today's business date. Call first if unsure which café or branch to use.

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_my_cafes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's contribution is scope and payload: the result is permission-scoped to "this person can see" and includes role, currency, time zone and today's business date. That scoping detail is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention ordering or result volume.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the payload description is front-loaded ahead of the routing advice. The opening is a noun fragment rather than a verb-led statement, which slightly weakens immediate comprehension but costs no words.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating café/branch identity plus role, currency, time zone and business date. That is sufficient for an agent to know when to call it and what it will get back.

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; the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly does not invent arguments the schema forbids.

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 the resource precisely – the cafés and branches visible to the caller – plus the metadata returned (role, currency, time zone, business date). The verb is implicit rather than stated, but an agent reading it alongside the name list_my_cafes can tell this is a discovery/list operation, distinct from order or report siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit sequencing rule: "Call first if unsure which café or branch to use," which tells the agent this is a prerequisite/discovery step before café-scoped tools. It does not spell out when-not to call it, but for an unfiltered self-scoped list that omission is low-risk.

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