list_registrations
List all imported ERC-8004 registrations.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
agent-erc8004-bridge
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists all imported ERC-8004 registrations, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or any additional behavioral traits, leaving some gaps for a listing tool.
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, concise sentence with six words. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
Given the low complexity (no parameters) and an output schema that likely defines the return structure, the description is sufficiently complete for basic usage. It lacks explicit usage guidance but is otherwise adequate for a simple list tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add param details. No redundancy or missing param semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('imported ERC-8004 registrations'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like import_registration. The scope ('all imported') is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for viewing previously imported registrations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the context to be inferred from the tool name and siblings.
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.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct role: bind_identity creates binding attestations, export_attestation exports trust-score payloads, verify_attestation checks integrity, and import/list/resolve/score each target different registry operations. No two tools appear to perform the same action.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern with clear verbs (bind, describe, export, import, list, resolve, score, verify). The only minor variation is list_registrations using a plural noun, but this is conventional and does not cause confusion.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server covers identity import, listing, resolution, feedback import, scoring, attestation export/verification, binding, and self-description. This is appropriately scoped for a bridge service without excess.
Completeness4/5
The core ERC-8004 workflows (registration, feedback, scoring, attestation) are represented. Minor gaps include no direct listing of feedback records and no delete/removal operation, but these are workaroundable.