guide-registry

List the guide registry

list_guides

Read-only

List the bicycle.guide registry — every guide's home, status, access, standard, syndication and grounding, plus the distribution roll-up (including guides homed to a property with no rendering surface).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`home`	No	Filter by owning property, e.g. jobframe, peopleanalyst, penwright.
`limit`	No	Cap the rows returned. Default 100, max 500.
`access`	No	Filter by access: free \| gated.
`domain`	No	Filter by life-domain — the layer ABOVE the subject shelf: work \| life \| play. Derived from the guide's category via content/registry/shelves.json. `rollup.by_domain` lists them.
`fields`	No	Row shape. "compact" returns only slug/title/home/status/access/price_cents/has_artifact/category/domain/personas/canonical_url — no rollup, no registry_meta. "full" returns the entire decorated registry row plus the rollup and registry_meta, as before. Default over this server: "compact".
`series`	No	Filter by guide series — the operational grouping of guides made to be used together, e.g. competencies, penwright-writing, startup-journey, ladder:hr-business-partner.
`status`	No	Filter by status: on \| draft.
`persona`	No	Filter by the audience a guide serves, e.g. people-analytics-professional, aspiring-author, executive-performance-leader. A guide can serve several; this matches any of them.
`category`	No	Filter by subject shelf — the reader-facing topic axis, e.g. field, skills, analytics, writing, comp. Matches the primary category OR a cross-shelf tag.
`standard`	No	Filter by standard: bicycle \| life-stage \| problem-opportunity.
`guide_type`	No	Filter by guide CLASS: career (level-based job guides, their own program) \| capability \| book_profile. Combine with series=ladder:<role> to get one role's whole ladder.
`has_artifact`	No	Only guides that do (true) / do not (false) have a new-design artifact.
`home_unrouted`	No	Only guides whose home has NO rendering surface at all (the distribution gap).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`limit`	Yes
`fields`	Yes
`guides`	Yes
`rollup`	No
`filters`	Yes
`api_version`	Yes
`registry_meta`	No
`total_matching`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive safety profile, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral nuance beyond annotations by explicitly calling out the distribution roll-up and noting that guides homed to a property with no rendering surface are included—an edge case an agent would otherwise not know about.

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 description is one dense, front-loaded sentence that names the action and resource, then spends the rest on valuable inclusion details. It is slightly redundant with the title but has no filler or wasted phrases.

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 rich input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and highlights a non-obvious inclusion. It does not need to spell out return shapes or all filter behavior because those are already captured in structured definitions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and all 13 parameters have detailed descriptions with examples, enum values, and defaults. The tool-level description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('the bicycle.guide registry'), then enumerates exactly what is included: every guide's home, status, access, standard, syndication and grounding, plus the distribution roll-up. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_guide (single guide lookup) and list_capabilities/list_taxonomy (other registries).

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?

The description implies this is the tool for a broad registry listing and that optional filters can narrow it, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_guide or the other sibling list tools. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing, leaving the usage context only inferred.

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

All guide-registry 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.

Resources

Need Help?