Skip to main content
Glama

Routebase

by dev.routebase.mcp

List Header Exclusions

list_header_exclusions
Read-only

List the headers excluded from the policy cascade. Level 'response' (needs specId and responseId) covers one endpoint response, 'project' the whole project. Requires project context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelYesWhich level to read: 'response' or 'project'
specIdNoPublic ID (GUID) of the API specification — required for level 'response'
responseIdNoPublic ID (GUID) of the endpoint response — required for level 'response'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only. The description adds that project context is required and that response-level needs both specId and responseId. No side effects are mentioned, but the 'list' verb implies non-destructive behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaningful information about the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, it covers purpose, levels, required parameters, and context. It does not describe output shape, but that is not necessary here.

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?

Schema descriptions cover all parameters. The description adds the conditional relationship that response level requires both specId and responseId, and explains the meaning of level values, going beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the action (list), the resource (headers excluded from policy cascade), and the two levels. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, but the resource is specific enough to be understood.

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?

Explains the two level values and the required parameters for each, as well as the need for project context. It does not reference alternative tools or when to choose this over them.

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

All Routebase toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources