Skip to main content
Glama

Oakallow

by io.github.oakallow

list_my_tools

Read-onlyIdempotent

Enumerate the customer-defined tools currently available to the signed-in user in the named org (or their only org if they have one). Returns tool names, descriptions, default permission, and risk level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgNoThe oakallow organization external id (e.g. org_oak_…) this action targets. Required when your account has more than one org; optional if you have exactly one. Get it from the org-specific oakallow skill you downloaded for that org.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that it returns tool names, descriptions, default permission, and risk level, and clarifies scope (user's tools, org). No behavioral contradictions.

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 concise, using two sentences that front-load the purpose and scope. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, the scope (user and org), and handles the single-org vs multi-org case.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%; the single 'org' parameter has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 tool's function: enumerating customer-defined tools. It specifies verb 'enumerate', resource 'customer-defined tools', scope 'available to signed-in user in named org', and output fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_approval_status or list_pending_approvals.

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 context (listing tools for a user in an org) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or explicit prerequisites beyond the org parameter handling.

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

All Oakallow 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose, but check_approval_status and list_pending_approvals both relate to approvals and could be confused if not read carefully. However, descriptions clarify the difference, so disambiguation is good but not perfect.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_, list_, start_). The verbs are clear and the names are predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a reasonable number for the domain of permission/approval management. It's well within the 3-15 range and each tool serves a distinct function without being overwhelming.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface has significant gaps. There is no way to approve or reject an approval request beyond checking its status, nor any tool to create, update, or delete custom tools beyond listing them. The start_test tool seems unrelated to the core domain, leaving incomplete coverage for the apparent purpose.

Resources