Skip to main content
Glama

list_drafts

Read-only

Lists unscheduled drafts owned by the authenticated API-key profile.

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_drafts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterNo
limitNo
statusNo
after_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoUpstream error details, when available.
codeNoError code when the tool result has isError=true.
dataNoPresent on successful results; omitted on tool errors.
metaNo
statusNo
messageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are scoped to the API-key profile and limited to unscheduled drafts, but it says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering despite having cursor-style parameters.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and scope with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of saying nothing about the parameters.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema and annotations exist, so return shape and safety need not be described. However, for a tool with four optional parameters including two apparently similar cursors, the description leaves too much unexplained for an agent to paginate or filter confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for four parameters, and the description explains none of them. In particular the roles of 'after' versus 'after_id', the 1-100 'limit', and the inbox/ready/archived 'status' filter are left entirely to the agent's guesswork.

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 verb and resource ('Lists ... drafts') plus a meaningful scope qualifier ('unscheduled') and ownership boundary ('owned by the authenticated API-key profile'). This separates it from get_draft (single fetch) and list_posts, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_draft for a single draft or list_posts for scheduled content. The word 'unscheduled' faintly implies an exclusion, but the agent must infer that this tool will not return scheduled posts.

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.

Resources