knack_list_objectsList an application's objects (tables) as a compact array [{ key, name, fieldCount }]. Convenience over GET /applications/{app_id}. app_id defaults to the configured KNACK_APPLICATION_ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | No | Optional Knack Application ID; defaults to the configured KNACK_APPLICATION_ID. |
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?
ReadOnlyHint is already provided via annotations, so the description doesn't need to state safety. It adds useful context: the output format (compact array with specific fields) and default appId behavior, which are beyond what annotations convey.
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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds detail. Every sentence adds value.
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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns (array of objects with key/name/fieldCount), default behavior, and a reference to the underlying API. No gaps detected.
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% and the description repeats the schema's information about the default value, adding no new semantic insight. Thus 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?
The description clearly states the action (list), resource (objects/tables), and output format (compact array with key, name, fieldCount). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like knack_get_application by specifying it lists objects rather than the whole application.
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 mentions it's a convenience over GET /applications/{app_id} and states the default behavior for appId. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some room for interpretation.
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 operation: CRUD for records, listing fields/objects/records, fetching application schema, and a generic request. No overlap in purpose.
All tools use 'knack_' prefix with verb_noun pattern (create_record, delete_record, etc.). The exception is 'knack_request' which lacks a verb, causing slight inconsistency.
9 tools is well-scoped for a Knack integration, covering essential CRUD, listing, schema retrieval, and an escape hatch.
Core CRUD operations are present, plus listing and schema. Missing batch operations or advanced filtering, but the generic request tool fills some gaps.