list_rulesList all 18 FlowSentry security rules with severity and OWASP Agentic mapping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool lists rules and mentions the content, but it does not describe side effects, return format, or whether any state changes occur.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant or extraneous information. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
The description is complete for a zero-parameter listing tool and includes the key output aspects (severity and OWASP mapping). With an output schema present, it adequately covers what an agent needs to invoke it.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not need to explain parameter semantics.
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?
The description clearly states the action (List), the specific resource (all 18 FlowSentry security rules), and the included details (severity and OWASP Agentic mapping). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool scan_workflow.
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?
The description indicates the tool lists all rules, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions or exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one lists security rules, the other scans a workflow. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_rules, scan_workflow), which is clear and predictable.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal for its domain. While the tools cover the core actions, the count is on the low end of typical scope, making it borderline.
The two tools provide a complete workflow for understanding rules and running scans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no per-rule detail view), but agents can work around them using the list output.