Skip to main content
Glama

ACM-68000 signals for listed issuers

List ACM-68000 signals

list_signals
Read-onlyIdempotent

The four ACM-68000 signals (canonical text v1.1, §6), what each means for a listed issuer, the page of each (acm-.ai), and the three reserved codes (never served).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_signals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety burden is lifted. The description still adds real behavioral context the schema cannot: the canonical text version (v1.1, §6), the deterministic page-name convention acm-<code>.ai, and the fact that three reserved codes are 'never served' — a return-set constraint an agent would otherwise be surprised by.

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 front-loaded sentence-fragment with no filler; every clause adds a distinct fact (count, version reference, semantics, page convention, reserved codes). It is slightly telegraphic — the fragment lacks a leading verb — but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating what each entry contains. A zero-parameter idempotent listing tool needs little more; only the relationship to get_signal remains unstated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this sits at 4. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema, and the enumerated return fields compensate for there being no argument semantics to explain.

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?

The description names the exact resource (the four ACM-68000 signals) and enumerates the payload precisely: meaning per issuer, page name (acm-<code>.ai), and the three reserved codes. It never states a verb like 'list' or distinguishes itself from sibling get_signal, so scope is clear but sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no reference to the sibling get_signal that would tell an agent to call this first and then drill in. Usage is only inferable from the zero-parameter schema and the enumerated output fields, which is thin guidance.

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.