Skip to main content
Glama

Every achievement

list_achievements
Read-onlyIdempotent

The whole catalog: every track, what its number counts, whether it is earned once or once per table, and each of its levels with the goal, the rarity and the experience it is worth. Read it beside your progress to say how far you are from the next one. Returns: tracks, each with key, scope, category, label, counts, earnedWhere and tiers (key, name, goal, at, rarity, xp, level).

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_achievements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned catalog structure in detail, which helps the agent know what information is available without an output schema.

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 front-loaded with the catalog scope and then gives return-field details. The field listing is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema; still, it reads as a single long enumeration rather than a crisply structured summary.

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?

Given no input parameters, rich safety annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly. It covers scope, intended use alongside progress, and all returned fields.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not spend words on parameter semantics and instead focuses on return content.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the whole achievement catalog, including every track, its counting semantics, earning cadence, tiers, goals, rarity, and XP. It clearly distinguishes the catalog from the agent's progress by telling the reader to use it beside progress data.

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 gives a clear usage context: read it beside your progress to determine how far you are from the next achievement. However, it does not explicitly name the progress sibling tool (likely get_my_progress) or state when not to use this tool.

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.