Skip to main content
Glama

org_list

List all organizations managed by the Technical Project Manager server to view available project structures and hierarchies.

Instructions

PROJECT MANAGEMENT: List all organizations. Usually only one org exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'org_list' tool including its schema and description in the list_tools() function.
    Tool(
        name="org_list",
        description="PROJECT MANAGEMENT: List all organizations. Usually only one org exists.",
        inputSchema={"type": "object", "properties": {}},
    ),
  • Input schema for org_list tool: empty object (no parameters).
    inputSchema={"type": "object", "properties": {}},
  • MCP tool handler in _handle_tool: retrieves organizations using db.list_orgs() and serializes to JSON.
    if name == "org_list":
        orgs = db.list_orgs()
        return _json([o.model_dump() for o in orgs])
  • Core database helper method that queries the 'orgs' table and constructs Org model instances.
    def list_orgs(self) -> list[Org]:
        rows = self.conn.execute("SELECT * FROM orgs ORDER BY name").fetchall()
        return [
            Org(id=r["id"], name=r["name"], created_at=datetime.fromisoformat(r["created_at"]))
            for r in rows
        ]
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no organizations exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is two short sentences with zero waste: it states the purpose and adds a useful contextual note. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error handling. For a basic list tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully handles the parameter semantics, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('organizations'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'project_list' or 'ticket_list' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description includes implied usage context with 'Usually only one org exists,' suggesting this tool is for basic listing when multiple organizations are unlikely. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'org_create' or other list tools, and no exclusions are provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/urjitbhatia/tpm-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server