list_records
List records in a document collection.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 100). | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination. | |
| collection | Yes | Collection name. |
List records in a document collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 100). | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination. | |
| collection | Yes | Collection name. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a 'List' operation, which implies read-only, but fails to disclose pagination behavior, error handling, or prerequisites like collection existence. Significant behavioral gaps remain.
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?
Single concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and no unnecessary words. Highly efficient.
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?
Despite low schema complexity and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple list operation. However, it does not mention pagination or response format, leaving moderate gaps.
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 description coverage is 100% with all parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'List records' with a specific resource (records) and context (document collection), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_collections and upsert_record.
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 verb 'List' implies it is for read-only inspection of records, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The intended use is inferred rather than stated.
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 resource and action: subdomain availability, site content, collections, records, and API keys. There is no meaningful overlap between tools like upload_site and create_collection, or delete_record and upsert_record. Even similar operations (reserve vs. release, create vs. delete) are clearly scoped.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores, such as check_subdomain_availability, clear_site, and rotate_site_api_key. Verb forms are uniform and predictable, making it easy to guess related operations. No mixed conventions or vague names.
With 13 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a demo platform covering subdomain management, site deployment, document storage, and API key handling. Each tool has a clear purpose, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range. No redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers nearly all essential workflows: subdomain lifecycle (reserve, check, release), site deployment (upload, clear), collection/record CRUD (create, delete, list, upsert), and API key management (get, rotate). Minor gaps exist, such as no update_collection or get_site details, but these are not critical for core usage. Overall, the surface is functionally complete for the stated purpose.