Skip to main content
Glama

List answers

list_answers
Read-onlyIdempotent

List Answers (contract v0), paginated with an opaque cursor. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax answers to return (default: loader's choice, capped 200).
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a previous list_answers call's nextCursor.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
nextCursorYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is redundant. The pagination/opaque-cursor detail is mild added context but is also restated in the schema's cursor parameter.

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?

A single terse sentence, front-loaded with the operation and scope. Minor waste in 'Read-only', which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema covering pagination shape, the description supplies the essentials. Only the sibling-selection context is missing, which is a usage-guideline rather than completeness gap.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema (limit cap/default, cursor origin). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond echoing the opaque cursor, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource ('List Answers') plus scope notes (contract v0, paginated). However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search_answers or list_guides, which an agent must choose between when deciding how to retrieve answers.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to use list_answers vs search_answers for a given retrieval need, or what prerequisites exist.

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