Skip to main content
Glama

List scenarios

list_scenarios
Read-only

The app's scenarios — what its checks look at: each with scenario_id, title, description, its expectations (what the description says must be seen, in its own words — a check answers each one), who wrote it (the team or the check), whether it is checked every time (daily), whether it is critical — walked on every check, whatever changed — with price_per_deploy_usd (what walking it adds to a check), and its last result. retired: true lists the ones no longer checked instead, with when and why each was retired. confirmation: a scenario the check found is to_decide until the person says to watch it — no daily or deploy check walks it before that — or not_journey; to_decide: true lists only those, and confirm_url is the page where the person decides.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_scenarios"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNoAct in another of your teams, by its name or id (whoami lists them). Omitted: the key's own team
app_idYesApp id from list_apps or create_app
retiredNotrue: the scenarios no longer checked instead — when and why each was retired
to_decideNotrue: only the scenarios the check found that wait for the person's decision

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real substance beyond them: what each item contains, what 'critical' implies (walked on every check regardless of change), what price_per_deploy_usd measures, and the lifecycle rule that a to_decide scenario is not walked by any daily or deploy check until confirmed. Missing only ordering/pagination or result-shape details.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The whole description is a single sprawling sentence chained with em-dashes and nested parentheses, mixing return-field documentation with flag semantics. Content is informative but poorly front-loaded: the confirmation/to_decide mechanics arrive at the end and are the hardest part to parse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the returned record fields and the meaning of the two alternate modes. For a read-only, four-parameter list tool this is close to sufficient; only ordering or volume expectations are absent.

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%, so retired and to_decide are already documented at the parameter level, and the description largely restates them in narrative form (retired adds 'when and why each was retired', which is a marginal gain). confirmation/confirm_url are explained, but they are response fields rather than parameters. 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 makes clear this lists an app's scenarios and enumerates the fields each record carries (scenario_id, title, description, expectations, author, daily, critical, price_per_deploy_usd, last result). It distinguishes itself implicitly from add_scenario/update_scenario/remove_scenario, but never names a sibling to route the agent away from.

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 context is embedded rather than stated: retired: true and to_decide: true are explained as alternate listing modes, which tells an agent when to flip those flags. There is no explicit 'use this when you need X' or any named alternative, so the agent must infer the primary use case.

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.