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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the registry scope and the edge case that guides homed to a property with no rendering surface are included. No behavioral surprises are hidden.

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?

One front-loaded sentence communicates the resource, the full field set, and an important roll-up edge case with no filler. The em-dash leads with the core verb/resource before the detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 13 optional filters fully described in the schema, read-only/destructive annotations in place, and an output schema available, the description covers the non-schema context: what the listing includes and the no-rendering-surface inclusion. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter semantics and adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bicycle.guide registry'), then enumerates the exact fields and includes the distribution roll-up, so the agent knows precisely what the tool returns. The scope ('every guide... including guides homed to a property with no rendering surface') distinguishes it from single-item or taxonomy/capability siblings.

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?

The description makes the use case clear: a complete registry listing rather than a single guide or a capabilities/taxonomy listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, 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.

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?