Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
huly-mcp-selfhost

huly-mcp-selfhost

by JoKeks2023
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

list_components

Read-only

Lists components (sub-areas) for a given project key, so you can inspect project structure and organize work items.

Instructions

List components (sub-areas) in a project

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": {
      "projectIdentifier": "<projectIdentifier>"
    },
    "name": "list_components"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspaceNo
projectIdentifierYesProject key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.5.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, so the description's burden is lighter. It contributes only the clarification that components are sub-areas and are project-scoped; it says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether listing is filtered or complete.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than crispness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a two-parameter tool the description never mentions the workspace parameter, which is undocumented in the schema as well, leaving an agent unsure how workspace and projectIdentifier interact. Read-only safety is covered by annotations and there is no output schema to explain, but the scoping gap is material.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%: projectIdentifier is documented as "Project key", while workspace has no description anywhere. The phrase "in a project" reinforces that projectIdentifier is required but adds no format, key-vs-id, or workspace-vs-project scoping detail to compensate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List components") and clarifies the domain term with "(sub-areas)", plus scopes it to a project. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling list_* tools, so it stops short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit signal is that a project context is required, which the schema already states.

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