Skip to main content
Glama

Find mentees

search_mentees
Read-onlyIdempotent

Searches the mentees (or, where mentees are groups, the groups) the person may see in a programme. Returns each one's member 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": {
      "program": "<program>"
    },
    "name": "search_mentees"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage, from 1 (20 per page).
queryNoWords to search in names and profiles (optional).
programYesId or domain of one of the person's programmes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds that results are limited to what the person may see and that a member id is returned per result. That permission scope and return-value shape are genuinely useful facts not in the annotations.

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 short sentences, the resource and the group-vs-person ambiguity resolved up front, and the return value in the second sentence. No filler wording.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly states the returned field and the visibility scope for a three-parameter read tool. Missing only minor details such as result ordering or whether query matches partial words.

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%, so page size, query length and program format are already documented. The description only reinforces that program must be one of the person's programmes, adding little beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3.

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 specific verb and resource (search mentees/groups) plus visibility scoping ("the person may see in a programme") and the returned field. It distinguishes the resource from person-type siblings implicitly but never names search_mentors as the person-oriented counterpart.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as search_mentors, so an agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone. The only usage context supplied is the implicit programme scoping.

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