Skip to main content
Glama

List environments

list_environments
Read-onlyIdempotent

Environments of a project with their kind and how many keys each holds (the keys list_secrets would name, values never). Environments outside the token's limits are marked restricted and carry no count. Requires projects:read.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "list_environments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYesProject slug or id

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYesProject slug
environmentsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is incremental and it delivers: it discloses the required permission scope and explains that environments outside the token's limits are marked restricted and carry no count. That restricted-entry behavior is non-obvious and not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the restricted caveat and the permission requirement. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers scope, return shape, edge-case behavior for restricted environments, and auth needs. Minor gaps remain, such as ordering or whether restricted entries still expose kind, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is a single 'project' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or resolution detail (slug vs id) beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific resource (environments of a project) and states exactly what each entry carries: kind and key count. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_secrets by clarifying that only key names, never values, are counted.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the resource scope (call it to see a project's environments) and the 'Requires projects:read' line gives a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_environment or diff_environments, and no when-not guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources