Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Seonix

by io.github.pahaa97
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List articles

list_articles
Read-onlyIdempotent

Articles in the project (Seonix-generated and imported): status, scores, keyphrase, cluster, publish dates. Paginated.

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_articles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page (default 1).
limitNoSame as per_page (accepted so every list tool pages with limit/offset).
offsetNoSkip this many articles (converted to page/per_page).
statusNoFilter: draft | scheduled | published. With a filter the list is built from the light index (id, title, status, keyphrase) and paged after filtering.
per_pageNoDefault 20, max 100.
project_idNoProject id or slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set and the fact that results are paginated, but gives no detail on ordering, total count, or what happens when project_id is omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is short and front-loads the resource and its fields, which is good. However it is written as two sentence fragments and the trailing 'Paginated.' carries almost no information beyond what page/limit/per_page already convey.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers what records contain. It leaves open the meaningful ambiguity of what project scope applies when the optional project_id is omitted, and says nothing about ordering of results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so page, limit, offset, status, per_page and project_id are all already documented in the schema, including the light-index behavior when filtering by status. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (articles) and enumerates exactly what each record carries - status, scores, keyphrase, cluster, publish dates - plus which articles are included (Seonix-generated and imported). It implicitly separates itself from the singular get_article sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the browse/list operation for articles within a project. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_article for a single article, nor when list_clusters or list_keyword_candidates would be the better sibling.

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

All Seonix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources