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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing that the result includes the distribution roll-up and that guides homed to a property with no rendering surface are included, clarifying the registry's full scope. This does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then packs the returned fields and the roll-up nuance into a neat list. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 complexity (13 optional filters, output schema present), the description's focus on scope, fields, and roll-up is sufficient. The rich schema and output schema cover filtering and return shape, leaving only usage-alternative guidance absent, which is a separate dimension.

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?

All 13 parameters are documented at 100% coverage in the schema, including enums and examples. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond pointing to the fields returned, so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names a unique resource ('bicycle.guide registry'), enumerating the fields it returns. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that list capabilities or taxonomy rather than guides, and from get_guide which targets a single guide.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to choose list_guides over get_guide, list_capabilities, or list_taxonomy. The sibling-tool context implies the difference, but the description itself never states a selection condition or names an alternative.

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?