Routebase

List Header Policies

list_header_policies

Read-only

List the header policies defined at one level: 'spec' (needs specId) or 'project'. Returns the ids, priorities and rowVersions needed to change them. This lists the policy objects — for the resolved header cascade on an endpoint use get_header_policies, for one response get_resolved_headers. Requires project context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`level`	Yes	Which level to read: 'spec' or 'project'
`specId`	No	Public ID (GUID) of the API specification — required for level 'spec'

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers mutation behavior; the description adds the prerequisite 'Requires project context,' which is a useful behavioral constraint. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured, with a clear main statement, a note on return fields, and explicit pointers to alternative tools. Not overly verbose.

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?

Provides enough context to choose this tool among many siblings, including the return fields and the context requirement. Lacks output format details, but no output schema makes that less critical.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds clarifying dependency: 'spec' (needs specId). This goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it lists header policies at a given level, specifies the levels ('spec' or 'project'), and distinguishes itself from related tools like get_header_policies and get_resolved_headers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'for the resolved header cascade on an endpoint use get_header_policies, for one response get_resolved_headers.' Also notes the specId requirement for the 'spec' level.

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

All Routebase tools Inspect

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

Need Help?