list_corpusList every document with its id, title, type, date, and word count, plus per-type counts. The table of contents for the whole site. Optionally filter by type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by content type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by specifying output fields and per-type counts, confirming read-only nature. No contradiction.
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?
Two concise sentences; first lists output fields, second adds context and filter option. No wasted words, front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema, description adequately explains return fields and counts. Missing potential details like ordering or error handling, but sufficient for a simple list tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with enum and description. Description reinforces it's optional but adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states it lists every document with specified fields and per-type counts. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_document (single document) and search.
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?
Mentions optional filtering by type but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search. Provides good context as 'table of contents' but lacks when-not guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: documents, operant results, profile, repo profiles, corpus listing, project listing, repo profile listing, and full-text search. No overlap in functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search), with 'search' being a lone verb but still clear. Minor inconsistency: 'list_corpus' uses singular 'corpus' but lists multiple items.
8 tools is well-scoped for a portfolio site, covering profile, documents, projects, repo profiles, and search without being excessive or insufficient.
Covers core read-only functionalities: profile, documents, projects, repo profiles, and search. Missing a dedicated 'get_project' tool, but list_projects provides sufficient detail for the portfolio context.