Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tg-agent

tg-agent

by Creatfire
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List recipes

tg_list_recipes
Read-only

Lists reusable built-in and user-saved workflows with their parameters, so you can find an existing recipe to reuse instead of rebuilding one from scratch.

Instructions

Reusable workflows (built-in and saved by the user) with their parameters.

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": "tg_list_recipes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the mild hint that entries come with their parameters; it says nothing about ordering, whether built-in and user recipes are mixed, or the shape of the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short fragment with zero padding, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of an actual predicate. A verb plus the current parenthetical would have been just as short and far clearer.

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?

For a no-argument, non-destructive list call with no output schema, the description is roughly sufficient to know what will be returned. It stops short of the one thing an agent still needs: how this catalogue relates to the run/inspect recipe tools around it.

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 per the baseline there is little for the description to compensate for. The schema already closes the object with additionalProperties=false.

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 description explains what a "recipe" is (reusable workflows, built-in and user-saved) and that parameters accompany them, which is useful domain semantics. But it is a noun phrase with no verb — the listing action only comes from the title, not the description itself, and it never distinguishes this catalogue lookup from siblings like tg_run_recipe.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. It doesn't say to call this before tg_run_recipe to discover available recipes, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions relative to the other list tools such as tg_list_accounts or tg_list_dialogs.

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