list_tools
List published AI tool pages: id, name, slug, url, domain, personas[], categories[].
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return. Omit for all. | |
| offset | No | Items to skip (paging). |
FutureSmart AI Demos
by com.aidemos
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It states it lists published tool pages but does not disclose that it returns all items if limit omitted, or that it's read-only. No mention of ordering, pagination behavior, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, clear, front-loaded with verb and resource, and efficiently lists returned fields. No wasted words.
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 list tool with no output schema, description lists fields which is helpful. However, lacks details on default behavior (e.g., what happens if limit omitted), pagination instructions for offset parameter, and whether results are ordered. Adequate but incomplete.
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% (both parameters described). Description does not add additional meaning beyond schema. 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?
Description explicitly states verb 'List', resource 'published AI tool pages', and the exact fields returned (id, name, slug, url, domain, personas[], categories[]). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_tool' (single tool) and 'search' (full-text).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'get_tool'. Does not specify constraints like maximum returned items (though limit max is in schema) or that it returns all items by default. No when-not-to-use advice.
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
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a distinct entity or action: list tools enumerate different content types, get tools retrieve specific entities, search finds across the catalogue, compare_tools does head-to-head comparison, and the two cross-reference tools (rankings_for_tool and tools_in_ranking) are inverse operations. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, compare_tools, search), but 'rankings_for_tool' and 'tools_in_ranking' deviate with a noun_prep_noun pattern. These two are internally consistent with each other and remain readable, so the overall convention is only slightly disrupted.
Tool Count4/5
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a catalogue covering seven entity types, search, comparison, and cross-references. Each tool has a distinct role and none are redundant, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers all major content types with list and get (except categories and toolkits, which only have list endpoints), plus search, comparison, and inverse cross-references. Minor gaps like missing get_toolkit or get_category are workaround-able since list_toolkits and list_categories expose sufficient metadata.