list-agreements
Read-onlyIdempotent
List agreements. Filter and sort by created_at, status, agreement_type, etc.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queryParams | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Common Paper
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Changed2 schema fields changed
- changed
Input schema / properties / queryParams / properties / filter[created_at_gteq] / patternPrevious value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$"New value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$" - changed
Input schema / properties / queryParams / properties / filter[created_at_lteq] / patternPrevious value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$"New value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$"
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no pagination behavior, no mention that filtering is exact-match vs contains, and an unsupported sorting claim.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. It is efficiently written; the problem is omission, not verbosity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but the description omits pagination semantics (default 15 per page), the significance of `full` for nested sub-models, and the pointer to list-agreement-types for valid filter values — all things an agent needs. The fabricated sorting capability further undermines completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Top-level schema coverage is 0% for the required `queryParams` wrapper, so the description must compensate and does not. It merely restates three field names that already carry rich nested descriptions (including the non-obvious `full` flag and the case-sensitive agreement_type lookup via list-agreement-types).
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?
States a clear verb+resource ("List agreements") that an agent can immediately understand. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as get-agreement, list-agreement-history, or list-agreement-types, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.
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?
The second sentence hints at filtering capability but never says when to use this versus get-agreement (single record) or list-agreement-history (audit trail). It also claims you can "sort by created_at, status, agreement_type" while the schema exposes no sort parameter at all, which actively misleads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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.