Skip to main content
Glama

List pools

list_pools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Las peñas del jugador (ligas semanales de su club): nombre, temporada, club, miembros, jornadas jugadas, bote, su puesto y puntos, la próxima jornada abierta con su respuesta («juego» / «no juego») y si él es el organizador. Sin peñas, lista vacía. Para unirse a una: join_pool con el código del organizador.

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_pools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an empty list is returned rather than an error when the player has no pools, and it spells out the response fields despite there being no output schema.

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?

The scope is front-loaded and the remaining clauses are a compact enumeration of returned fields plus the empty-case and join_pool pointer. It is dense but every clause corresponds to something the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 parameters and a rich annotation set, the only real gap was return shape, which the description covers field by field, including the player's next-matchday response and organizer flag. The missing piece is a one-clause distinction from get_pool.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 names a specific resource and scope — the caller's own pools ('Las peñas del jugador'), explicitly weekly club leagues — and enumerates what each entry carries, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate from the sibling get_pool (singular), which is the one ambiguity left.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Usage context is clear (this returns the caller's pools, not a global directory) and it routes a related task to an alternative: 'Para unirse a una: join_pool con el código del organizador.' It offers no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison to get_pool, so it stops short of a 5.

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.