Skip to main content
Glama
Iqram09

kong-ai-gateway-mcp

by Iqram09
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List Kong services

list_services
Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover and map names to services configured in Kong Gateway, returning compact summaries with a reference for follow-up lookups or investigation.

Instructions

Lists the services configured in Kong, one compact summary each.

USE WHEN: you need to discover what exists in the gateway, or map a vague name a user gave ("the payments API") onto a real service. Also useful to confirm a service exists before investigating further.

DO NOT USE to investigate a specific route or path. If the user named a path such as /payments, call find_route_by_path instead -- it goes straight to the relevant entity rather than making you scan a list.

RETURNS: items, each with ref (pass to other tools), name, target (where the service sends traffic) and enabled; plus a page object with hasMore and nextCursor.

LIMITATIONS: summaries only -- no plugins, no routes, no timeouts. Use get_service for the full record of one service. A page that reports hasMore=true is NOT the complete set.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum items to return (1-100, default 25). Prefer a small value and narrow the query instead of paging through everything.
cursorNoOpaque cursor from a previous result's `nextCursor`. Omit for the first page. Only use a cursor this tool returned -- cursors cannot be constructed.
nameContainsNoCase-insensitive substring filter on the service name, e.g. "payment". Use this rather than paging through every service when you already know roughly what you are looking for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the return shape, that entries are summaries only (no plugins/routes/timeouts), points to get_service for the full record, and warns that hasMore=true does not mean the complete set.

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?

Header-delimited blocks (USE WHEN / DO NOT USE / RETURNS / LIMITATIONS) front-load the routing decision, and every line carries actionable content. Length is justified by the paging and summary-vs-full-record caveats.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: item fields, page fields, and the summary/full distinction. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret results is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that `ref` is the handle to pass to other tools and by reinforcing the paging contract (hasMore/nextCursor), which connects the schema fields to real workflow semantics rather than restating them.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lists the services configured in Kong') and immediately scopes the granularity to 'one compact summary each'. Explicitly differentiates itself from find_route_by_path and get_service in later sections, so an agent can place it precisely among siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Has explicit USE WHEN (discover entities, map a vague user name, confirm existence) and DO NOT USE (route/path investigation) with the named alternative find_route_by_path and the reason it is better. This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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