list_stacks
Read-onlyIdempotent
List approved public or template stacks whose tools are approved.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| locale | No | ||
| offset | No |
One AI Guide
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it filters for 'approved' stacks, providing additional behavioral context beyond 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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what fields the returned stacks contain or provide any details about the response format. This is a significant gap for a listing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions for limit, locale, or offset (0% coverage). The description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from common conventions.
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 clearly states the tool's function: listing stacks that are approved, public, or template. This is distinct from siblings like get_stack (retrieving a single stack) or search_tools (searching tools).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (listing approved public/template stacks) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to use this versus search_tools or list_guides.
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.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: get/list for guides, stacks, and tools, plus a dedicated search and compare tool. There is no meaningful overlap between get_tool and search_tools because one is direct retrieval and the other is discovery.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case. get_*, list_*, search_*, and compare_* are predictable and easy to group by intent.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a knowledge/discovery server focused on tools, stacks, and guides. Each tool covers a clear need without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The core read-only surface is well covered: guides and stacks have get/list, tools have get/search/compare. The main minor gap is the lack of a dedicated list_tools or search for guides/stacks, though agents can likely work around this with the existing tools.