Skip to main content
Glama

Agentic Endpoints

by com.oliverkiss

List the keys in a vault namespace

vault_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the keys held in a namespace with their metadata: alg, size, timestamps. Never returns ciphertext — use vault_retrieve for that. Each item's updated_at is the version to pass back as if_match on a conditional store. Use this when you have stored secrets and need to know what is there. Costs $0.001 in USDC on Base, paid via the x402 protocol.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namespaceYesIsolation scope
namespace_tokenYesOne-time token issued by the first call that claimed this namespace. Required for every later call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of entries
itemsYesMetadata only — ciphertext is never included here
statusYes'listed'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint false; the description adds meaningfully beyond that: it never returns ciphertext, updated_at is the version to pass as if_match on conditional stores, and the call costs $0.001 USDC on Base via x402. There is no contradiction with 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?

Every sentence earns its place: primary behavior first, then the ciphertext restriction and alternative, then the if_match version detail, then usage context and cost. It is tight, front-loaded, and free of redundant 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?

The input schema covers both required parameters, the output schema covers the return shape, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description covers purpose, alternatives, cost, and version semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so namespace and namespace_token are already documented. The description does not add material parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it references namespace in context but adds no new syntax, format, or parameter-specific guidance.

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?

The description names the exact resource (keys in a vault namespace) and the action (list), and adds that it returns metadata only, never ciphertext. It explicitly contrasts itself with vault_retrieve, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools immediately.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives a clear usage trigger ('Use this when you have stored secrets and need to know what is there') and an explicit alternative ('use vault_retrieve for that' when ciphertext is needed). This gives an agent enough direction to choose correctly without opening other tool definitions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Agentic Endpoints toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: meetings have import/list/search/get, the once-key system has claim/complete/release, vault has store/retrieve/exists/list/delete/rotate_token, and compress/pdf_parse/scrape are separate utilities. No two tools appear to perform the same side effect, so an agent should not struggle to choose among them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tools use consistent snake_case and mostly follow a domain_verb pattern (meetings_*, once_key_*, vault_*), with standalone verbs like compress, scrape, and pdf_parse for single utilities. The naming is predictable and easy to extend.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools the server is just above the ideal 3-15 range, but the count is justified by six distinct capability clusters. Each tool earns its place, and nothing feels redundant.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycles are covered well: vault has full CRUD plus token rotation, once-key has claim/complete/release, and meetings provide import/search/get/list. Minor gaps include no meeting update/delete and no direct namespace management, but these are workable rather than blocking.

Resources