Skip to main content
Glama

meta-agent-tools

by com.agentalog
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List MCP servers

list_mcp_servers
Read-onlyIdempotent

MCP subregistry (GET /v0.1/servers). Only live kind=mcp. Only kind=mcp and only live. It is the route a generic MCP client knows how to read without knowing this product. GET /v0/servers is an alias of the same resource, kept for whoever already pointed there — this is the canonical URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoServers per page.
cursorNoOpaque cursor of the next page, from `metadata.next_cursor`.
searchNoFree text over the server's name and description.
api_passNoMAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.
retry_keyNoOptional retry key, up to 80 ASCII characters; same read for five minutes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / api_pass
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "MAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / retry_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional retry key, up to 80 ASCII characters; same read for five minutes.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor / description
      Added value: +"Opaque cursor of the next page, from `metadata.next_cursor`."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Added value: +30
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Servers per page."
    • addedInput schema / properties / search / description
      Added value: +"Free text over the server's name and description."
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context with the hard filter (only kind=mcp, only live) and the canonical-vs-alias route distinction, but says nothing about result shape or paging behavior beyond what the schema states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The endpoint and scope are front-loaded and the passage overall is short. However, 'Only live kind=mcp. Only `kind=mcp` and only `live`.' is a verbatim self-duplication, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter listing tool, the description covers scope, filtering, and route semantics, and the schema covers input and pagination. With no output schema, however, it never hints at what a result entry contains, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding what to do with the response.

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 all five parameters individually documented (limit, cursor, search, api_pass, retry_key), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 identifies the exact resource and scope ('MCP subregistry (GET /v0.1/servers)', filtered to live kind=mcp entries), which tells an agent what the call returns. It never states the verb 'list' explicitly and does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as mcp_index_search or mcp_index_signals, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is a hint of intended use ('the route a generic MCP client knows how to read without knowing this product'), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are named. With siblings like mcp_index_search and mcp_index_signals in the same family, the agent gets no routing guidance.

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

All meta-agent-tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources