list_available_specsList the project's API specifications with their published status — the candidates for manage_spec_snapshot(action: 'add'). A spec without a published version cannot be snapshotted. Requires project context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| versionId | Yes | The public Id (Guid) of the doc version | |
| documentationId | Yes | The public Id (Guid) of the documentation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the snapshot-candidate context and the unpublished-version constraint, but does not disclose output format or whether any implicit filtering occurs beyond published status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, immediately front-loads the tool's purpose, and uses a dash to add relevant context without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description mentions 'Requires project context' but does not specify how to establish it or how the required documentationId/versionId parameters fit into that context. With no output schema, some operational details are left implicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes both parameters as required public IDs, but the description adds no explanation of how documentationId and versionId relate to the listing. The parameter descriptions are minimal and functionally tautological.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool lists API specifications with published status and identifies them as candidates for manage_spec_snapshot(action: 'add'). It distinguishes itself from generic list_specs by focusing on availability for snapshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear use case: listing snapshot-eligible specs. Includes the key constraint that unpublished specs cannot be snapshotted. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like list_specs or list_versions for other listing needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.