Skip to main content
Glama

list_agents

Browse indexed ACP agents with trust scores to discover and evaluate available agents in the maiat-protocol ecosystem.

Instructions

Browse indexed agents with their trust scores. Returns a paginated list of all known ACP agents.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax number of agents to return (default: 50)

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler for 'list_agents' which executes the request via the SDK.
    async ({ limit }) => {
      try {
        const data = await sdk.listAgents(limit);
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text" as const,
              text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
  • Tool definition and schema registration for 'list_agents' in the MCP server.
    server.tool(
      "list_agents",
      "Browse indexed agents with their trust scores. Returns a paginated list of all known ACP agents.",
      {
        limit: z
          .number()
          .default(50)
          .describe("Max number of agents to return (default: 50)"),
      },
  • The actual SDK method that performs the API call to fetch the list of agents.
    async listAgents(limit = 50): Promise<{ agents: AgentTrustResult[]; total: number }> {
      return this.request(`/api/v1/agents?limit=${limit}`);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a paginated list, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'trust scores' entail. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with key information in two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds behavioral context (paginated list). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, so it neither compensates for gaps nor adds value over the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse indexed agents with their trust scores' specifies the verb (browse) and resource (agents with trust scores). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_agent_reputation' or 'get_agent_trust' by focusing on listing all agents rather than retrieving specific agent data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Returns a paginated list of all known ACP agents' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or when to choose this over sibling tools like 'get_agent_reputation' for individual agent details. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it scores a 2.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JhiNResH/maiat-protocol'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server