Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Carrick

by io.github.carrick-tools
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List the project's services

list_services
Read-onlyIdempotent

List every service in the project with endpoint and call counts. Call it when unsure what exists or which repo owns a name. For the call graph, use get_service_graph.

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_services"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoYour repo as owner/repo (git remote) or just the repo name. Resolves which Carrick project to query.
projectNoCarrick project slug to query. Omit to auto-resolve via `repo`, or omit both when the workspace has one project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the result contains (services with endpoint and call counts), which no output schema provides. It is silent on result size or scope limits for large projects, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste: the resource and return content come first, then the usage trigger and the disambiguation. Nothing repeats the title or the annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool, the description covers purpose, trigger, return content, and the nearest alternative, while the schema fully documents project resolution. There is no output schema, but the description already states what comes back, so no essential information is missing.

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% and both parameters (repo, project) already document their resolution and omit-behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, precedence, or fallback detail beyond what the schema says.

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 and resource ('List every service in the project') plus the return content ('endpoint and call counts'). It explicitly names the sibling it is not ('For the call graph, use get_service_graph'), so an agent can separate it from get_service_graph without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete trigger condition ('when unsure what exists or which repo owns a name') and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it ('For the call graph, use get_service_graph'). Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else are stated.

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