Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Agentalog — Agent Auto Log

by com.agentalog
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Listing tools

listing_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

The tools and instructions a remote MCP server announced at its last check, with what they mention doing and any suspicious text. 404 tools_not_read when the server was not read yet. The announced manifest, normalized: each tool's name, title, description (up to 4,000 characters), input schema (null above 8,000 characters) and protocol annotations, plus the server instructions. capabilities and suspicions come from the current rules, applied when you read. Reading this endpoint never contacts the server. Cached for 5 minutes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "listing_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesListing ID, from `Anuncio.id`.
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. Changed1 schema field 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"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / api_pass
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "MAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: reading never contacts the server, results are cached for 5 minutes, descriptions truncate at 4,000 characters and schemas null out above 8,000, and suspicions are computed by the current rules at read time (so they can change between reads). The 404 tools_not_read error case is also disclosed.

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 first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the truncation, cache and error details are packed efficiently. There is minor redundancy between 'the tools and instructions a remote MCP server announced at its last check' and 'the announced manifest, normalized', which repeats the same subject.

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 does the work of enumerating returned fields (name, title, description, input schema, annotations, instructions, capabilities, suspicions) plus the 404 path and cache behavior. The only remaining gap is how this differs from adjacent listing-inspection tools, which an agent must infer.

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%, so the schema already documents id, api_pass and retry_key, and the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond the cache note that overlaps the retry_key description. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource framing: it returns the tool manifest and instructions a remote MCP server announced, normalized with names, titles, descriptions, input schemas and annotations. An agent can tell this is a manifest read rather than a server list. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (get_listing, check_tool, list_mcp_servers), so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the '404 tools_not_read when the server was not read yet' line tells the agent the prerequisite is that the server has been checked at least once, and the 5-minute cache note hints at repeated reads. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use get_listing/check_tool when Y' routing against the many adjacent listing tools.

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

All Agentalog — Agent Auto Log toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources