Skip to main content
Glama

List extra pages

vs_subpages_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the extra pages (sub-pages) a visual monitor watches besides its main address, with their status and, per viewport target, the baseline and newest capture file names.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "vs_subpages_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMonitor id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by describing the payload — status per sub-page and, per viewport target, baseline and newest capture file names — which matters since there is no output schema. Missing only error/precondition behavior for non-visual monitors or monitors with no sub-pages.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause carries information about scope or return content. The nested modifier 'and, per viewport target, the baseline and newest capture file names' is dense but not padded.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both what it takes (a visual monitor id) and what it returns (status, baseline and newest captures per viewport). Only precondition/edge-case behavior is unstated.

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% for the single 'id' parameter ('Monitor id.'), so baseline is 3. The description adds the constraint that the id refers to a visual monitor, but no format or lookup guidance beyond that.

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 (list) and resource (extra pages / sub-pages of a visual monitor) and scopes it to what the monitor watches 'besides its main address'. That scope clearly separates it from vs_monitors_get and vs_visual_get, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping phrase 'a visual monitor watches besides its main address', which tells the agent the input must be a visual monitor. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not or pointer to alternatives like vs_monitors_get for the main page.

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.