Skip to main content
Glama

List Agent Office Steps

list_agent_office_steps
Read-onlyIdempotent

[read] The step library a plan graph is built from: every step (step key, role, needs, inputs, outputs, links) plus the io_types, need_types and ai_kinds a node may use. A node is {id, step, needs, ai, agent, skills, chat}; an edge links an output of one node to an input of another.

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_agent_office_steps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining the returned domain content: step fields, type catalogs, and node/edge structure. It omits details such as ordering, pagination, or response envelope, which are secondary for a zero-parameter list 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 front-loaded with a '[read]' marker and two dense but relevant sentences. Every clause contributes to understanding the step-library domain, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the main source of return-value context, and it does supply step fields, type catalogs, and node/edge shapes. It is reasonably complete for a zero-parameter list tool, though it does not specify the top-level response envelope or pagination behavior.

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 input parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly focuses on the domain data returned rather than inventing input behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific resource: the step library used to build plan graphs, including step fields and type catalogs. It is clear enough to distinguish from plan-graph tools like list_agent_office_plans, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 phrase 'the step library a plan graph is built from' implies this tool is used when inspecting available steps before creating or editing a plan graph. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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.