Tenjin

List creators

list_creators

Read-only

The flat publisher directory: every creator with at least one published piece, alphabetical by handle then wallet address, each with its real article count, cursor-paginated. A wallet that has published nothing is a reader, not a directory entry, so it does not appear here. Keyless. Use get_creator for one publisher's profile plus their article feed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	1–100, default 50
`cursor`	No	nextCursor from the previous page

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and openWorld, so safety is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the directory is flat, excludes readers (no publications), uses cursor pagination, and is keyless. It could mention data freshness or empty state, but the added context is substantial.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is efficient without being overly terse, though the first sentence is slightly dense.

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 explains the return (list with real article count, cursor-paginated) and sort order. It implies the response includes a cursor for pagination. It covers the essential behavior for a simple list tool, though explicit mention of the response structure (e.g., fields like handle, wallet) would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both limit and cursor. The description mentions cursor-paginated, which reinforces the cursor parameter's role, but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists all creators with at least one published piece, sorted alphabetically by handle then wallet, paginated with article count. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling get_creator, which is for a single creator's profile and feed.

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 description provides a clear use case (directory listing) and explicitly directs to get_creator for an individual profile. While it doesn't cover all sibling exclusions, it gives a strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use example.

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

All Tenjin tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: answer and search are both search-like but one returns a single synthesized answer vs a shortlist, which is a meaningful difference. A few overlaps exist, like get_article vs pay_and_read where both unlock content, but they handle payment differently. Naming is mostly clear but answer and search could cause temporary confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Overwhelmingly uses verb_noun pattern (get_article, delete_essay, list_articles, publish_essay, update_profile), which is predictable. answer and search are exceptions that don't follow the pattern, but they are the primary entry points for a key workflow, so their deviation is understandable and they still convey their purpose. Minor inconsistency keeps it from a 5.

Tool Count5/5

22 tools is on the higher end but wholly appropriate for a content marketplace that involves two distinct roles (creator and buyer) with separate write vs read flows, payment handling, search, trending signals, feedback, and image uploads. Each tool earns its place with a clear role in supporting either the publishing or the discovery/purchase workflow.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete coverage for both reader and publisher workflows. Readers can search, browse, preview, buy, read articles, and report outcomes. Creators can publish, list, update, soft-delete essays, manage their profile, upload images, track sales and stats. The answer feedback loop via report_search_outcome and get_trending is a notable addition that closes the loop. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.

Resources

Need Help?