list_capabilitiesList the capability slugs an agent can filter or look up by (e.g. 'send-email', 'query-database'), most-populated first. Use these with get_capability or search_servers' capability filter — the taxonomy isn't guessable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max capabilities (default 30) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses ordering (most-populated first) and purpose, but does not explicitly state it's a read-only operation or discuss pagination beyond the limit parameter. However, no annotations exist to contradict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and example, followed by usage guidance. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys return content, ordering, and integration with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers the single parameter with description. The tool description adds context on ordering and non-guessable taxonomy beyond what schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists capability slugs for filtering/lookup, with examples. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning get_capability and search_servers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using the returned slugs with get_capability or search_servers' capability filter, and notes the taxonomy isn't guessable, guiding appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: checking trust, comparing servers, generating configs, fetching records, listing capabilities or loadouts, searching, planning, and reporting. No two tools overlap in purpose; even similar verbs like 'get' and 'list' are applied to different resources.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_trust, get_server, list_capabilities). The verbs are specific and descriptive, and the nouns clearly indicate the target resource or action.
14 tools is well-scoped for a server that indexes and evaluates MCP servers. The number is sufficient to cover core operations (retrieval, comparison, configuration, planning, reporting) without being overwhelming or redundant.
The tool surface covers all essential interactions: exploring servers, capabilities, loadouts, and stats; comparing and trusting; generating configs; planning toolkits; and reporting issues. The domain is fully served with no obvious missing capabilities.