Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lynxprompt-mcp

lynxprompt-mcp

by GeiserX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

List my hierarchies

list_hierarchies
Read-onlyIdempotent

Browse and paginate prompt hierarchies that group a repository's blueprints under one repository_root, returning hierarchy IDs for retrieval or deletion.

Instructions

List your hierarchies. A hierarchy groups the blueprints of one repository (for example the AGENTS.md files of a monorepo) under one repository_root. Returns ids (ha_...) for get_hierarchy and delete_hierarchy. Paged like list_blueprints.

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_hierarchies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHierarchies per page, 1 to 100. Default 50.
offsetNoHow many hierarchies to skip. Default 0.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
totalNoItems matching, across all pages
offsetNo
has_moreNoTrue when another page exists: call again with offset + limit
hierarchiesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: results are paged (with a reference point of list_blueprints) and the returned identifiers carry an ha_ prefix that other tools consume. It doesn't discuss page-size limits or total counts, but those are secondary given full annotations and an output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the domain definition, then the return-value and paging note. No filler. It is efficient without being skeletal.

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-required-parameter list tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, the domain concept, the id format, paging behavior and downstream consumers. An agent has enough to call it correctly and use the result, though it relies on the sibling list_blueprints for paging specifics.

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 100% and both parameters (limit, offset) are documented with ranges and defaults in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. 'Paged like list_blueprints' is a cross-reference rather than added parameter detail. The description does not need to repeat the schema's range and default information.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List your hierarchies') plus a domain explanation that a hierarchy groups one repository's blueprints under a repository_root. It also signals downstream consumers (get_hierarchy, delete_hierarchy) and its kinship to list_blueprints. It stops short of an explicit contrast with search_blueprints, which is the nearest ambiguous sibling.

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 effectively tells the agent when to reach for this tool: when it needs ha_... ids to feed get_hierarchy or delete_hierarchy. That is a concrete use context. There are no exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use statements, so it falls one step short of the top score.

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