List all live Vee3 agent tools.
Use this when you need to discover which tools exist and what they are called in MCP. Each entry includes mcp_tool_name, group_id, and summary. Use meta-tools.describe for full request/response schemas and token costs
Cost = 0 tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tools | No | Live tool summaries for every capability exposed to agents. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / $defs / ListAllToolsResponseToolsItem / properties / capability_idRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "description": "Capability id (for example website-screenshot).",
- "title": "Capability Id"
-}Output schema / $defs / ListAllToolsResponseToolsItem / properties / display_nameRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "description": "Human-readable capability name.",
- "title": "Display Name"
-}Output schema / $defs / ListAllToolsResponseToolsItem / properties / group_display_nameRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "description": "Human-readable group name.",
- "title": "Group Display Name"
-}Output schema / $defs / ListAllToolsResponseToolsItem / properties / rest_methodRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "description": "HTTP method for the REST endpoint.",
- "title": "Rest Method"
-}Output schema / $defs / ListAllToolsResponseToolsItem / properties / rest_pathRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "description": "REST path for the capability.",
- "title": "Rest Path"
-}Output schema / $defs / ListAllToolsResponseToolsItem / properties / statusRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "description": "Capability status (live, soon, or deprecated).",
- "title": "Status"
-}Output schema / $defs / ListAllToolsResponseToolsItem / properties / token_costRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "description": "API tokens charged for one successful call.",
- "title": "Token Cost"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses 'Cost = 0 tokens,' which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't mention other behaviors like rate limits, pagination, or whether the list is cached. The read-only nature is implied by 'List,' but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is five short, focused sentences, each adding value: purpose, when to use, output contents, pointer to alternative, and cost. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description is fully complete. It states what it lists, what each entry contains, when to use it, and points to the sibling tool for more detailed information. The existence of an output schema means return structure needn't be detailed further, but the description still adds relevant context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and with 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters and doesn't attempt to, which is appropriate for a parameter-less tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'List all live Vee3 agent tools,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings by explicitly directing users to meta-tools.describe for schemas and costs, while also implying a comprehensive catalog of all tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you need to discover which tools exist and what they are called in MCP.' It also names an alternative tool (meta-tools.describe) for full schemas and token costs, giving clear context for when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose, further clarified by group prefixes and clear descriptions. Within each group, tools perform different operations (e.g., domains.lookup vs. domains.whois vs. domains.rdap) with no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent group.tool_name pattern using snake_case. The naming is predictable and uniformly applied across all groups.
78 tools is high, but the server aggregates multiple distinct API domains (11 groups). Each group has a reasonable number of tools, typically under 10, with TikTok having 17. The count reflects breadth, not bloat.
Each domain's tool set covers the primary expected operations (e.g., search, details, reviews, metrics, user info). There are no obvious gaps for read-only analytical use; features like posting are likely out of scope.