Skip to main content
Glama

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesListing ID, from `Anuncio.id`.
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
    • 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"
-}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: reading never contacts the server, results are cached for 5 minutes, and field-level truncation limits (4,000 chars, schema null above 8,000). This is substantive context an agent could not get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, followed by error state, structure, provenance of capabilities/suspicions, and caching. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; minor verbosity in the backtick-heavy manifest sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (name, title, description, input schema, protocol annotations, capabilities, suspicions, server instructions). Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it omits any note on pagination or result size beyond truncation limits.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both id and retry_key are already documented in the schema, including the five-minute reuse semantics. The description's 'cached for 5 minutes' overlaps but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the tools and instructions a remote MCP server announced at its last check, normalized as a manifest. An agent can tell this is a read of a stored manifest rather than a live query, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with close siblings like check_tool or listing_security.

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 only implied. The '404 tools_not_read when the server was not read yet' clause tells the agent what a failure means, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance, e.g. versus check_tool or get_listing.

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
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources