Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
local-context

local-context

by JustinA988
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_sources

Read-only

Lists configured external data sources by name and type so you can identify available connections before querying or reading data.

Instructions

List configured external data sources by name and type.

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_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only 'configured' sources are returned and that output is name/type keyed, which partially substitutes for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, empty results, or whether disabled sources are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though there is little structure to speak of and no additional routing information was packed in despite ample room.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool this is close to adequate, and with no output schema the name/type hint does useful work. It still leaves open what a source record contains beyond name and type and how failures (no configured sources, auth issues) surface.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. The mention that results are keyed by name and type is a small bonus rather than compensating for any schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (external data sources) and adds what is returned: name and type. It does not differentiate from the closely named siblings read_source and refresh_source, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when listing suffices versus reading a single source.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'configured' sources suggests enumerating existing integrations before acting on one. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the read/refresh alternatives that clearly exist alongside it.

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