aspern

Find the vault you mean

list_vaults

Read-onlyIdempotent

The vaults we read, so a caller holding a name rather than a slug can find the one it means. Free. Absence from this list means we do not read that vault, never that it does not exist.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No	Part of a vault or platform name, matched as typed.
`limit`	No	Default 25, maximum 200.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Each with its slug, which is what vault_check takes.
`fields`	No	Which fields this tool kept from the endpoint’s own rows, and where the rest are.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / data

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Each with its slug, which is what vault_check takes.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / fields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which fields this tool kept from the endpoint’s own rows, and where the rest are.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / items

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Each with its slug, which is what vault_check takes.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "data"
+]
```

AddedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds the non-obvious open-world behavior: if a vault is absent from this list, the caller should conclude the service does not read it, not that it does not exist. It also notes the operation is free. Because annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description's additional context is valuable but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is exceptionally short and every sentence earns its place: the scope, the use case, the cost, and the key absence semantics. The most important behavioral note is front-loaded. There is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 simple list tool with a full output schema and supportive annotations, this is nearly complete. It explains what is listed, why someone would call it, and the critical interpretation of absence. The only minor gap is the lack of any explicit note about pagination beyond the limit parameter, but the schema covers limit.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully with 100% coverage. The description adds only the indirect context that q represents a name rather than a slug, which is already captured by the schema's 'vault or platform name' wording. No meaningful parameter semantics are added beyond the schema.

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 conveys that this tool enumerates the vaults this service can read, and frames it as a name-to-vault lookup. It distinguishes the scope by saying 'the vaults we read' and by explaining that absence means no read access, not nonexistence, which separates it from a general vault finder like find_vaults. However, the core verb is implied rather than stated explicitly ('The vaults we read' instead of 'List the vaults...').

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear use case: a caller who holds a name rather than a slug can use this to find the intended vault. It also provides an important semantic warning about absence from the list. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer find_vaults, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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

All aspern tools Inspect

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

Need Help?