Skip to main content
Glama

DirectIQ

directiq_get_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one contact list by ID: name, created and modified dates, and total, active, and disabled contact counts. Use directiq_list_lists to find the ID. Returns an error if no list has that ID.

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": "directiq_get_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNumeric list ID (from directiq_list_lists)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Numeric list ID"New value: +"Numeric list ID (from directiq_list_lists)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the not-found error behavior, which is real context beyond the annotations; only the exact error shape is left implicit.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns, how to get the ID, and the failure mode. Front-loaded with the payload description and free of filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so enumerating return fields in the description is exactly what is needed, and the not-found condition plus ID provenance closes the loop. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents the numeric ID and its source. The description restates the same 'find the ID via list_lists' guidance, adding little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies for a single fully-documented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one contact list by ID') and enumerates the returned fields (name, dates, total/active/disabled counts). Explicitly contrasts with directiq_list_lists, so the agent can distinguish a single-fetch from a listing without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Tells the agent to use directiq_list_lists to obtain the ID and warns that an error is returned when no list matches. It gives clear context and a prerequisite route, though it doesn't spell out an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion.

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.