Skip to main content
Glama

Nopaque TotalPath

List Load Tests

listLoadTests
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all load-test runs in your workspace. Each load test fans out N concurrent test runs against a target number and produces aggregate statistics. Returns a paginated array.

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": "listLoadTests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: workspace scoping, the fan-out of N concurrent runs producing aggregate statistics, and a paginated array return. It stops short of page-size or cursor details, but that is minor.

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?

Three short sentences that front-load the action and scope, with no filler. The middle sentence about fan-out is dense domain jargon but earns its place by explaining what the returned aggregate statistics represent.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies scope, pagination, and semantic context. Its main shortfall is not clarifying the distinction from listTestRuns, which matters given how many sibling list tools exist.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The schema is trivially complete and the description adds no conflicting parameter claims.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all load-test runs in your workspace") and explains what a load test is. However, it blurs the line between load tests and load-test runs, and gives no differentiation from the sibling listTestRuns, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent is left to infer whether this or listTestRuns is the right call for plain test-run queries; only the implicit "load-test" scope hints at selection.

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.