Skip to main content
Glama

My programmes

list_my_programs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the mentoring programmes the person belongs to as mentor and/or mentee, with the id/domain other tools take as program. Programmes whose admins turned off AI assistants are listed with ai_access=false and cannot be used.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_my_programs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoNumber of programmes.
programsNoprogram_id, domain, title, your_role (mentor, mentee or mentee+mentor), ai_access.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the read-only and idempotent safety profile, but the description adds meaningful behavior: memberships are returned for mentor and/or mentee roles, and programmes whose admins disabled AI assistants are included with ai_access=false and cannot be used. Those are concrete operational details an agent needs before consuming the result.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope. The second sentence carries the useful chaining detail and the AI-disabled exception without 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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the definition only needs to explain membership scope, the meaning of the returned program id/domain, and any access caveats. It covers all of those, including the ai_access=false case.

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?

There are no input parameters at all, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no space explaining nonexistent inputs and instead explains what the output represents for other tools.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the mentoring programmes the person belongs to as mentor and/or mentee.' That membership scope is clear and distinguishes it from tools that list matches, meetings, or mentoring tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It signals that the returned id/domain is the `program` value other tools take, giving a clear chaining context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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.

Resources