Skip to main content
Glama

Compiler Explorer

by io.github.compiler-explorer

list_libraries

Read-only

List available libraries for a given programming language

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leanNoForce id+name only, regardless of count. Useful to browse the catalog before drilling in.
matchNoCase-insensitive AND-of-tokens filter on id, name, and version strings (so "boost 1.88" finds Boost when one of its versions matches 1.88.x). Numeric tokens match version-prefix; alphanumeric substring.
languageYesLanguage ID (e.g. "c++", "rust")
maxResultsNoCap full-detail entries (default 25). Beyond the cap, degrades to lean (id+name only) with a refinement hint.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, such as result format, pagination behavior, or what 'available' means. This is minimal disclosure even given the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the core action and resource.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description lacks context about return values, parameter interactions (e.g., how 'lean' affects output), and expected behavior. Without an output schema, the description should provide more guidance to make the tool fully understandable.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'libraries', and the condition 'for a given programming language'. This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_compilers and list_languages, which target different resources.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when needing libraries for a specific language. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, though sibling tools are different enough to avoid confusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Compiler Explorer toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: compiling code, sharing via short URLs, retrieving sharing info, listing compilers, languages, libraries, and looking up assembly instructions. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., list_compilers, generate_short_url, lookup_asm_instruction). The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. It covers core compilation, sharing, metadata exploration, and instruction documentation without being too sparse or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the primary workflow (compile, share, browse metadata) and includes a unique instruction lookup. A minor gap is the lack of detailed compiler information beyond listing, but this does not significantly hinder the agent's ability to use the server effectively.

Resources