workspaces.providers.executions.list
GET /v1/workspaces/:slug/providers/executions
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| pathParams | No |
ClawSpan ShardLink MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read vs. write, permissions, pagination, or side effects. It only provides the HTTP path.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but underspecification undermines its value. It does not earn its place because it adds no meaningful information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is entirely inadequate. Missing critical information about behavior, parameters, and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about their meaning, format, or usage. Parameters remain completely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the HTTP method and endpoint path, without explicitly stating what the tool does. The purpose is vague; an agent cannot determine that it lists executions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it differs from siblings. There is no mention of context, alternatives, or prerequisites.
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.
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
All 43 tools are clearly disambiguated by a hierarchical dot-separated naming scheme (e.g., workspaces.billing.accounts.create). Each tool targets a unique combination of resource and action, with no apparent overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
The naming follows a consistent <domain>.<subdomain>.<action> pattern, with actions as verbs (create, list, revoke, etc.). The use of underscores within the final component is uniform, making the pattern predictable across all tools.
Tool Count4/5
At 43 tools, the server covers a broad scope (contracts, billing, workspaces, tasks, etc.), which justifies the high count. However, it is slightly above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, risking overwhelm.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers many operations for billing, tasks, and workspace management, but lacks fundamental create/update/delete for some core resources (e.g., no workspace.create or instruments.delete). Agents may encounter dead ends.