list_dossiers
Returns a list of all available intelligence dossier slugs.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No |
Tresslers Group Intelligence Matrix
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description simply declares a read operation. It adds no details about access controls, ordering, or pagination, but the straightforward nature limits the need.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, zero waste. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple listing tool, but could mention that results depend on user permissions or that it only returns slugs. Having an output schema reduces the need, but slightly more context would help.
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 parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no further param info, but none is needed.
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 clearly states it returns a list of all available intelligence dossier slugs, using specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which is adequate but not top-tier.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_dossier or search_intelligence_matrix. The agent receives no context for selection.
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
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: Q&A via RAG, updates, listing, graph traversal, full-text reading, and semantic search. No two tools overlap significantly in functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
All names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern, though some have extra qualifiers (e.g., 'ask_intelligence_rag' vs 'list_dossiers'). The pattern is predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for an intelligence retrieval system. Each tool contributes a necessary operation without superfluous clutter.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core operations for a read-only intelligence repository: listing, searching, reading, asking questions, and tracking updates. Minor metadata features are missing but not critical.