activated-ai

list_advisors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks which advisors exist, wants the catalogue/list of experts, or «какие советники». Do not invent the catalogue from memory — call this tool. Каталог экспертов-консультантов (советников) по бизнес-методикам. Каждый советник — методика из бизнес-книги. Поле access: available | needs_subscription | needs_purchase. Идентификатор для ask_advisor — slug.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Сколько вернуть (по умолчанию 50, макс 100).
`offset`	No	Смещение для пагинации (по умолчанию 0).
`category`	No	Опциональный slug категории (например «продажи», «управление»).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`count`	Yes
`limit`	Yes
`offset`	Yes
`advisors`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "advisors": {
+      "items": {
+        "oneOf": [
+          {
+            "additionalProperties": false,
+            "properties": {
+              "access": {
+                "enum": [
+                  "available",
+                  "needs_subscription",
+                  "needs_purchase"
+                ],
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "author": {
+                "type": [
+                  "string",
+                  "null"
+                ]
+              },
+              "not_for": {
+                "type": [
+                  "string",
+                  "null"
+                ]
+              },
+              "pick_when": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "slug": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "tasks": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "title": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "slug",
+              "title",
+              "author",
+              "access",
+              "tasks",
+              "pick_when",
+              "not_for"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          {
+            "additionalProperties": false,
+            "properties": {
+              "access": {
+                "enum": [
+                  "available",
+                  "needs_subscription",
+                  "needs_purchase"
+                ],
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "author": {
+                "type": [
+                  "string",
+                  "null"
+                ]
+              },
+              "description": {
+                "type": [
+                  "string",
+                  "null"
+                ]
+              },
+              "slug": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "title": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "slug",
+              "title",
+              "author",
+              "access",
+              "description"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "maxItems": 100,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "count": {
+      "maximum": 100,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "limit": {
+      "maximum": 100,
+      "minimum": 1,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "offset": {
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "advisors",
+    "count",
+    "limit",
+    "offset"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it warns not to invent the catalogue from memory, explains that each advisor is a methodology from a business book, and reveals that the response includes an 'access' field with specific values and a 'slug' identifier used for ask_advisor. This is useful behavioral and response information for a read-only list tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively brief and front-loaded with the primary usage trigger. It has some redundancy between English and Russian, but every sentence provides useful information. It is not overly verbose and fits the tool's function well.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the catalogue contains, the access field, and the link to ask_advisor. It doesn't mention sorting or edge cases, but for a list tool this is sufficient.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, and category. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the 'slug' field, but that is about response data, not request parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns the catalogue/list of advisors/experts. It is specific about the resource (advisors/советники) and the action (list/catalogue). It differentiates from siblings by mentioning that the slug is used for ask_advisor, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with find_advisor.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the user asks which advisors exist, wants the catalogue/list of experts, or «какие советники»'. It also instructs the agent to call this tool rather than inventing the catalogue from memory. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the when-to-use is clear and actionable.

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

All activated-ai tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing the catalog, finding an advisor for a task, asking a specific advisor a question, and checking access. The overlap between find_advisor and list_advisors is minimal and well-explained, so no confusion arises.

Naming Consistency4/5

Three tools follow the verb_noun pattern (ask_advisor, find_advisor, list_advisors), but my_access deviates by being a possessive phrase rather than a verb-based name. This is a minor inconsistency in an otherwise predictable scheme.

Tool Count5/5

With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the core advisory workflow: discover, match, consult, and manage access. Every tool earns its place, and the count feels appropriate for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full user journey: listing available advisors, finding the best match for a task, asking an advisor with session continuity, and checking access/limits. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of providing business methodology advice.

Resources

Need Help?