Skip to main content
Glama

PeppolStatus

by com.peppolstatus
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

list_software

Read-only

List the software library (Market)

The signature catalogue's PRODUCT taxonomy joined to what the network shows: for every engine, its display name, vendor, category and homepage, the current host count broken down by observed role, when it was first and last seen, a compliance signal for the seats running it, and a host-count trend of up to 90 UTC days.

Every catalogue engine appears, including one the network does not currently show (hosts: 0, a flat trend) — the library is the catalogue, not only today's sightings. category is the vendor's own framing; roles is the OBSERVED fact and is the one to trust where the two disagree.

compliance.seats_linked is deliberately not called "owned": an engine → seat link is MANY-TO-MANY, so a seat whose hosts run two engines is counted under both and its findings appear under both. Summing open_findings across engines therefore OVER-COUNTS the network total; the figure answers "how much compliance debt sits behind this engine", never "who is to blame". compliance is null when no seat is linked to the engine, and snapshot_date always travels with the numbers because the daily rollup can be a day stale.

lanes[] (issue #798) reports each tracked upstream LANE of the engine — a lane is not an engine: oxalis covers three independent release ladders — with its latest_release and the hosts_current / hosts_behind / hosts_unknown split of the hosts running it. advisories summarises the live advisories published for the product by CVSS severity. Both are NULL — never [] or zero counts — for the engines the catalogue tracks no upstream feed for. Market tier.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoTrend window in trailing UTC days, 1..90 (default 90). The ceiling is part of the contract — `days` can only narrow the window, never widen it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses several non-obvious behaviors: zero-host engines are included, compliance seats are many-to-many and summing over-counts, compliance is null when no seat is linked, snapshot_date can be a day stale, and lanes/advisories are NULL when no upstream feed exists. This is substantial, actionable transparency and is consistent with 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 long but every paragraph contributes necessary caveats or field semantics that would otherwise be missing without an output schema. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and progressively adds detail, with no 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 no output schema, the description covers all major return groups: identity fields, host counts, first/last seen, compliance, trend, lanes, and advisories, including null semantics and stale-data caveats. No critical usage aspect for this read-only list tool is left unexplained.

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?

The only parameter, `days`, is already fully documented in the schema including range, default, and the ceiling contract. The description mentions 'up to 90 UTC days' but adds no new parametric meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with 'List the software library (Market)' and details that it returns every catalogue engine with network-derived fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_software / get_software_stats / list_software_anomalies by stating the full-catalogue scope and 'every catalogue engine appears' rather than a single product or anomaly view.

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 gives clear interpretative guidance: unseen engines are included, trust roles over category, don't sum compliance, lanes differ from engines, and NULL means no upstream feed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to recognize this as the catalogue-wide listing tool.

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

All PeppolStatus toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources