list_capability_bindings
List capability bindings for the current organization.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | ||
| provider_id | No |
Algenta MCP Server
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the basic purpose, omitting details like whether it lists all bindings, any limits, pagination, or side effects. Agents lack context for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no redundancy. Front-loaded purpose. Highly concise, though at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and two undocumented enum/string parameters, the description is severely incomplete. Agents cannot determine response format, filtering behavior, or optionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention parameters at all. Agents receive no explanation of the 'scope' enum or 'provider_id' string, making correct parameter selection impossible.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'capability bindings', scoped to 'current organization'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_capability_binding' and 'discover_capability_binding' by being specific.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'discover_capability_binding', 'test_capability_binding'). The parameters imply filtering but no context is provided.
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.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, but there is some overlap (e.g., run_repository_fix vs run_repository_pipeline vs simulate_repository) that could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names are primarily snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies (e.g., single-word verbs like 'simulate', 'tokenize', and mixed prefixes like 'preview_', 'product_'). The pattern is readable but not uniform.
Tool Count1/5
With 140 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for typical MCP usage. This overwhelms agents and suggests poor separation of concerns, likely violating the principle of minimal tool surfaces.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data onboarding, simulation, decisions, repository management, and admin operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_agent_run), but core workflows are well-supported.