Lexiara

The law this key follows

list_follows

Read-onlyIdempotent

The instruments, provisions, subjects, jurisdictions and verticals this API key follows. READ-ONLY: creating or removing a follow is an HTTP POST/DELETE to /v1/follows, and no tool here dispatches one. (The one tool in this catalogue that writes anything is request_ingestion, which asks for a law and touches no follow.) Requires the caller's OWN key — the shared demo key is refused, since a follow list under it would be shared with strangers.

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_follows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The JSON response from the corresponding Lexiara API route.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it explicitly labels the operation READ-ONLY, explains that follow changes happen via HTTP POST/DELETE to /v1/follows (not via any tool here), and specifies that the caller must use their own key, not the shared demo key. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and packs essential caveats (read-only, key requirement) without extraneous wording. Every clause earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (so return format is covered elsewhere), the description is complete. It covers the scope, the read-only nature, the impossibility of mutating follows through this catalogue, and the key ownership requirement. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing to add beyond what the schema provides (which is empty), and the description appropriately focuses on the operation's semantics rather than parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as listing the instruments, provisions, subjects, jurisdictions, and verticals that an API key follows. It uses a specific verb ('lists'), a resource ('follows'), and enumerates the scopes, distinguishing it from sibling tools that might operate on follows in other ways.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (to see what the key follows) and explicitly states that no tool in the catalogue dispatches follow creation/removal, which guides the agent away from trying to mutate follows. It also warns that the shared demo key is refused, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool for follow management, only states that none exists.

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

All Lexiara 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?