Skip to main content
Glama
Open Tracked MCP

Open Tracked MCP

Official

open_tracked_containers

List all Open Tracked containers or get a specific one with its domains to review tracking configuration.

Instructions

Your Open Tracked containers: 'list' them all, or 'get' one with its domains.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "open_tracked_containers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
containerIdNoThe Open Tracked container id (the number in its address).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that 'get' returns domains, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires auth or a specific account context, what 'list' returns, or whether results are paginated.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the two actions. Nothing redundant, nothing padding.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more: it never says what a 'list' call returns, whether results are paged, or what identifies a container in the response. Adequate to start a call but not complete for a tool with zero structured support.

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 only 50% – the action enum values have no per-value descriptions in the schema. The description compensates by mapping 'list' to all containers and 'get' to a single container plus its domains, and implies containerId is needed for the 'get' branch. That is genuine added meaning over the bare enum.

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?

Names the resource (Open Tracked containers) and the two operations it supports, 'list' all or 'get' one with its domains. That is a specific verb+resource pairing an agent can act on, though the domain term 'Open Tracked container' is unexplained and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings like open_tracked_domains.

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?

The two modes are described in terms of what they do ('list them all' vs 'get one with its domains'), which implies which to pick, but there is no statement of when this tool is preferred over open_tracked_domains or the other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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