list_brains
The Website Brains in this workspace.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Cadencz
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states 'The Website Brains' without disclosing that the operation is read-only, returns a collection, or any edge-case behavior. There is no contradiction, but the description adds little beyond a noun phrase.
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 it reads as a sentence fragment rather than a complete, informative sentence. It is under-specific rather than appropriately concise, similar to a description like 'Process' – every word is short but the message is incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least clearly state that the tool returns the list of website brains and what those include. It doesn't define 'Brain', whether the result is an array, or any relevant details. For a zero-parameter tool, leaving out such basics is unencessarily incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so nothing needs to be described. The absence of parameters makes this dimension trivially satisfied; the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource ('Website Brains') and the scope ('this workspace'), but lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'. The tool name supplies the action, making it semi-redundant, yet it does convey the target resource. It does not differentiate the tool from sibling list tools other than by the resource name.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like query_brain, list_workspaces, or list_channels. The only contextual hint is the workspace scope, which is thin and leaves routing to inference.
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
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: plan approval, scheduling, publishing, analytics, planning, and listing all have clear boundaries. Even the schedule/publish/approve tools are easy to distinguish because their source objects and outcomes are explicitly different.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming almost uniformly follows a verb_noun snake_case pattern, such as list_brains, compose_post, and cancel_scheduled_post. The one small deviation is publish_now, which uses an adverb rather than a noun object, but the overall pattern remains highly predictable.
Tool Count5/5
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a content planning and social media scheduling server. Each tool addresses a meaningful part of the workflow without unnecessary bloat or redundant helpers.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers planning, composing, scheduling, publishing, canceling, analytics, and workspace/channel context. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps: no update or delete operation for drafts or scheduled posts, and no way to fetch a single post's detail beyond a list.