Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Courier

by io.github.trycourier
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

list_provider_catalog

Read-only

List the provider integrations Courier supports and the configuration each one expects. This is the catalog of what COULD be connected, not what this workspace has configured — use list_providers for that. Answers "what can I connect Courier to" and "what do I need in order to set up this provider".

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_provider_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keysNoComma-separated provider keys to return, for example "sendgrid,twilio".
nameNoSubstring match against the provider's display name.
channelNoReturn only providers serving this channel, for example email, sms or push.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / channel / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by channel type (email, sms, push, etc.)"New value: +"Return only providers serving this channel, for example email, sms or push."
    • changedInput schema / properties / keys / description
      Previous value: -"Comma-separated provider keys to filter by"New value: +"Comma-separated provider keys to return, for example \"sendgrid,twilio\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Substring match on provider name"New value: +"Substring match against the provider's display name."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds a key behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: this returns the global catalog of what COULD be connected, not the workspace's configured providers, which prevents a common category error when comparing against list_providers. It doesn't address response size or pagination, but the scope disclosure is the more important behavioral fact and the safety profile is already covered by the annotation.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the core operation, then the sibling differentiation, then user-question framing. The restatement of purpose in question form is mildly redundant but earns its place by helping agents map natural-language intent to the tool.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-param listing tool with full schema coverage, the description covers selection semantics, scope, and setup relevance. It doesn't describe the response shape, but the tool's low complexity and clear schema/annotations make the description complete enough for correct invocation.

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% — all three params (keys, name, channel) have descriptions. The description reinforces that each catalog entry includes configuration expectations, but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List the provider integrations Courier supports and the configuration each one expects') and immediately differentiates from the sibling list_providers by clarifying catalog vs workspace config. It also frames the tool by the two questions it answers, so an agent can match it to user intent without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when not to use it — 'use list_providers for that' — drawing the workspace-config vs catalog boundary. The phrasing 'what do I need in order to set up this provider' implies the setup/onboarding context that would trigger selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Courier toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources