Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gear MCP Server

Gear MCP Server

by CloudStudioIoT
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List facilities

list_facilities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve accessible facilities with their client and location to identify IoT sites available to the user within permission limits.

Instructions

Facilities (sites) the user can see, with their client and location.

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_facilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds the meaningful scoping fact that results are filtered to what the user can see and that each entry carries client and location, but says nothing about pagination or result size for a potentially large listing.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler and the key information front-loaded. It is arguably terse to the point of omitting the operation verb, but nothing in it is wasted.

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, read-only listing with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: what comes back and whose scope it covers. Only pagination/volume expectations are absent, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 schema carries nothing extra to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter behavior for a no-argument call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The fragment names the resource (facilities/sites), the visible scope ("the user can see"), and the payload (client and location), so the intent is inferable. But it's a noun phrase with no explicit verb, and it never states that this is a list/read operation or how it differs from the devices/alarms siblings beyond the resource name.

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 statement of when to call this versus find_devices, list_devices, or list_alarms, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource noun.

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