Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCPDactyl

MCPDactyl

by MrMirhan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List panels

panel_list

Lists registered Pterodactyl panels with API keys masked, so you can review configured panels without exposing credentials.

Instructions

List registered panels. API keys are masked.

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": "panel_list"
  }
}

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious return behavior ('API keys are masked'), but it says nothing about read-only semantics, auth requirements, ordering, or whether unregistered/offline panels appear.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The masking note is worth its space, though it is the only piece of substance beyond restating the name.

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 simple no-arg list call the definition is serviceable, but with no output schema and no annotations the description could have said more about the returned panel fields or whether inactive panels are included. It is minimally complete rather than thorough.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to document and nothing misleading is claimed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List registered panels'), which is unambiguous against write-oriented siblings like panel_add, panel_use, and panel_remove. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from those siblings, which keeps it 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by 'List'; there is no statement of when to reach for this versus panel_test or panel_use, nor any preconditions. For a zero-parameter enumeration tool the intent is obvious enough that this is adequate rather than harmful.

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