Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

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.

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_external_calls"
  }
}

Input 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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context beyond that, especially that rows are candidates rather than verified egress, which sets appropriate expectations for audit use.

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?

The description is three dense sentences with no wasted language, and the scope is front-loaded. The caveat about candidates not being verified egress is well placed at the end.

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 an eight-parameter read-only inventory tool with no output schema and rich schema descriptions, the description covers the essential context: what is enumerated, the mechanisms, the audit starting point, and the reliability caveat. Remaining gaps, such as pagination details, are covered by the schema.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the audit use of the 'targets' view and 'target' filter but does not add new syntax or behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb (enumerate) and clearly defines the resource as this project's recorded outbound-call candidates, naming the three mechanisms. It is easy to tell what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as get_service_dependencies or get_callers.

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?

It states a clear use case (inventory or audit outbound traffic) and gives a concrete audit workflow: start with view 'targets', then fetch call sites per target. It stops short of explicitly naming when not to use it or which alternative tool to choose.

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
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources