Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
content-engine-mcp

content-engine-mcp

by DevMandalia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

list_sources

Retrieve all sources attached to a given seed so you can review citations and verify which material supports its content.

Instructions

List attached sources for a seed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "seed_id": "<seed_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seed_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated or ordered, whether unattached sources are excluded, or what the response looks like. "List" hints at a read, but nothing is disclosed about permissions or result scope.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted wording. It is tight to the point of being terse, leaving no room for the guidance an agent would need.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), so a brief description is defensible. Still, an agent must guess what a "source" is and what the returned list contains, which is a meaningful gap for a discovery tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the schema only names seed_id. The description compensates partially by clarifying that the parameter identifies the seed whose attached sources are returned, but it adds no format, ID-shape, or filtering semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("attached sources") with a scope qualifier ("for a seed"), so an agent can tell it apart from attach_source or get_seed. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous.

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 use this versus alternatives such as get_seed or search_seeds, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit cue is that a seed_id is required, which the schema already tells the agent.

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