Skip to main content
Glama

Carrick

by io.github.carrick-tools
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List outbound calls to external targets

list_external_calls
Read-onlyIdempotent

Enumerate this project's recorded outbound-call candidates: SDK calls into declared dependencies, calls to declared external domains, and env-var URL bases, each with its service, file and line. Use it to inventory or audit what a service talks to outside itself; for an audit, start with view "targets" to see every distinct target with counts, then fetch call sites per target. Rows are candidates, not verified egress.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoYour repo as owner/repo (git remote) or just the repo name. Resolves which Carrick project to query.
viewNo"targets" returns one row per distinct (target, mechanism) with call-site counts, services, and sample operations instead of raw call sites. The audit entry point: read the targets first, then drill into each with the `target` filter.
limitNoMax rows per page (default 100, max 500).
offsetNoRow offset into the inventory (default 0). Pass the `next_offset` from a previous call to page through.
targetNoCase-insensitive substring of the target — the dependency name, hostname, or env-var name. Use it to narrow past framework and utility packages.
projectNoCarrick project slug to query. Omit to auto-resolve via `repo`, or omit both when the workspace has one project.
serviceNoFilter to one service (fuzzy match by service name, repo name, or trailing segment). Omit for the whole project.
mechanismNoFilter by how the call was recorded: sdk (a call into a declared dependency), external_http (a declared external domain), env_var_url (a declared external env-var base).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/no-open-world. The description adds real value beyond them: 'Rows are candidates, not verified egress' warns about data trustworthiness, and it describes the paging mechanism (next_offset). It does not cover result-size or rate behaviors.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the enumeration scope before the usage/workflow guidance; every clause carries information. It is dense with comma-separated lists, slightly reducing scanability.

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 correctly specifies returned fields (service, file, line) and paging via next_offset, and the candidate caveat. Minor gaps remain, e.g. whether a total count or has-more indicator accompanies next_offset.

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 the schema already documents repo, view, limit, offset, target, project, service, and mechanism. The description mostly restates the three mechanism categories and the targets view; the only marginal addition is advice to use target to narrow past framework/utility packages.

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?

States a specific verb (Enumerate) and resource (outbound-call candidates) and enumerates the three recorded categories — SDK calls, external domains, env-var URL bases — plus the returned fields (service, file, line). An agent can tell this apart from inventory/audit siblings like get_service_dependencies.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case (inventory or audit what a service talks to outside itself) and prescribes a workflow: start with view="targets", then fetch call sites per target. It does not name which sibling to avoid or when not to use it, so it falls 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 Carrick toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources