list_seriesDiscover available series. Optionally filter by a case-insensitive substring matched against series label/description, e.g. "exchange rate" or "CPI". Omit query to list all (large).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 50). | |
| query | No | Substring to match against label/description (case-insensitive). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 20,
+ "query": "exchange rate"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful caveat that listing all series without a query returns a large result set, and it clarifies the case-insensitive substring matching behavior. This goes beyond the structured annotations.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the action ('Discover available series'), provide an example, and warn about the unfiltered case. No wasted 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?
The tool is simple (two optional params), annotations are rich, and schema covers all parameters. The description adequately explains the tool's behavior and the volume caveat, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the query parameter's purpose but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond what the 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Discover' and names the resource 'series', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like series_info (which likely targets a single series). The optional filter behavior is also stated, making the purpose immediately understandable.
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?
The description explains the optional query filtering and warns that omitting the query returns all series ('large'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
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.