Skip to main content
Glama

list_mcptoken

Retrieve and paginate MCP Token records from Django admin, with filters, search, and ordering by fields like user, active status, or expiry.

Instructions

List MCP Token instances with filtering, searching, ordering, and pagination.

Filter lookups: field (exact), field__iexact, field__contains, field__icontains, field__startswith, field__istartswith, field__endswith, field__iendswith, field__gt, field__gte, field__lt, field__lte, field__in, field__range, field__isnull; date fields also take field__year, field__month, field__day (and field__date on datetimes), optionally followed by a comparison (field__year__gte). Relation paths (e.g. category__slug) and custom filter parameters work only when the admin declares them in list_filter / date_hierarchy: describe_mcptoken lists them under admin_config.filters. Invalid filters return an error.

Available fields:

  • id (BigAutoField)

  • name (CharField) [required]

  • user (ForeignKey) [required]

  • is_active (BooleanField)

  • created_at (DateTimeField)

  • expires_at (DateTimeField)

  • last_used_at (DateTimeField)

  • groups (ManyToManyField)

  • permissions (ManyToManyField)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of items to return (default: 100)
offsetNoNumber of items to skip (default: 0)
searchNoSearch term to match against searchable fields
filtersNoFilter criteria. Keys are field names with optional lookups (e.g., {'status': 'published', 'created_at__gte': '2024-01-01'}), or filter names listed by describe under admin_config.filters
order_byNoFields to order by. Prefix with '-' for descending (e.g., ['-created_at', 'title'])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose useful traits such as invalid filters returning an error and relation paths only working when declared in list_filter/date_hierarchy. It omits the read-only safety profile, any auth/permission requirements, and does not describe pagination or return-format behavior beyond the field list.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clean sentence, followed by structured reference material. The lookup-suffix enumeration is dense but earns its place given the filter complexity; a slight trim could improve it but it is well-organized.

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 5-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers filtering, searching, ordering, pagination, the full available field list, and error semantics. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with only the safety/auth profile left unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema: the full set of lookup suffixes, date-field sub-lookups, chained comparisons, and relation-path filtering. This enriches how the filters object is actually used, warranting above baseline.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (List) and resource (MCP Token instances) plus the four capabilities (filtering, searching, ordering, pagination). It is clearly distinguishable from get_mcptoken/describe_mcptoken, and it even points to describe_mcptoken as the filter-declaration reference, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other list-like siblings.

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?

It explains how filtering works and that relation paths/custom filters only function when the admin declares them, plus that invalid filters error out. However it never states when to prefer this tool over search/autocomplete siblings or when filters vs the search parameter should be used, leaving usage to inference.

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