Skip to main content
Glama

list_maps

Read-only

The maps made in the dashboard's map builder: each one's name, how many pins and lines or areas it holds, its look, whether it is shared as a page of its own (with the link), and whether its pins come from a Google Sheet. Then map_code gives the code that puts one on a site.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_maps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds content detail (name, pin/line counts, styling, sharing link, Google Sheet provenance) but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result-size behavior for what could be a long list.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its attributes, with the map_code pointer as a natural follow-up. The first sentence is a long enumerated run-on, but every item listed is a returned field with no padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what each returned map record contains and points to map_code for embedding, which is what an agent needs in order to act on results. The missing piece is any statement about result set size or ordering for an account with many maps.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing parameter noise.

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 specifies the resource (dashboard map-builder maps) and conveys that it enumerates them with attributes, which cleanly separates it from create_map/update_map/delete-style siblings. It never uses an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns', so the purpose is clear from context rather than stated outright.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no comparison to alternatives such as create_map, update_map, or map_code beyond a passing mention that map_code produces embed code. The agent must infer that this is the read path for existing maps.

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.

Resources