Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
asset-finder-mcp

asset-finder-mcp

by Erfangit23
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_providers

List asset providers and their status to identify which sources are configured and ready for searching.

Instructions

List all available asset providers and their status. Shows which providers are configured and ready to search. Use this to understand what sources are available before searching.

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_providers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the tool lists configured providers and their readiness to search, which conveys read-only, non-destructive behavior. It doesn't elaborate on return format or edge cases, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function, the second explains the purpose and timing. No redundant or vague wording.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what is returned (providers and status) and when to use it. It could mention the exact output structure, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description sufficient.

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 schema already documents this (100% coverage). Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all available asset providers') and adds scope ('their status'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on enumerating providers rather than searching for assets.

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?

The description explicitly advises to use this tool 'before searching,' providing clear context for when it applies. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but the phrasing effectively differentiates it from the search-focused siblings.

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