list_mcpsEvery MCP server on this account, with calls in the last 30 days and first-call success. Start here when the user names a server you have not seen, or asks what they have.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mcps | Yes | Every MCP on the account. Samples sort last. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's safety burden is low. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the account-wide scope and the performance data returned, which goes beyond what the annotations convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what is returned and the second gives a clear usage trigger, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the resource scope, the included metrics, and the situations that should trigger use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, the description appropriately focuses on output scope and usage rather than argument semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the operation as listing every MCP server on the account, including the 30-day call stats and first-call success metric. The scope 'Every MCP server on this account' distinguishes this from sibling get_mcp, which targets a single server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Start here when the user names a server you have not seen, or asks what they have.' It gives clear context for invocation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.