Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proto OS

Proto OS

by ANAMIZED
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

list_mounted_servers

Lists MCP servers currently mounted on the in-process mux to verify mounts after mux_mount. Read-only.

Instructions

List MCP servers currently mounted on the in-process mux.

Use after mux_mount. Read-only.

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": "list_mounted_servers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 clearly states 'Read-only' and scopes the behavior to servers 'currently mounted on the in-process mux,' which is meaningful for safety and freshness. It does not describe empty-list behavior, but the output schema covers return details.

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: the primary action first, followed by usage timing and read-only status. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy or repetition of schema details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the resource, the mux context, the relationship to mux_mount, and the non-mutating nature, while sibling tool names and the output schema cover the remaining ambiguities.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema fully documents this with 100% coverage. There is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List MCP servers currently mounted on the in-process mux.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_protocols, which lists protocols rather than servers, and mux_mount, which performs the mounting action.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit usage context with 'Use after mux_mount,' telling the agent when this tool is appropriate relative to a sibling tool. It also notes the operation is read-only, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare against list_protocols.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools