Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
warp-mcp

warp-mcp

by Ringer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List connectivity partners (DCAs/CNPs)

msg_list_dcas
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the common Direct Connect Aggregators and connectivity partners WARP considers for election. Review available CNPs before picking a partner.

Instructions

List the Direct Connect Aggregators / connectivity partners (CNPs) that WARP elects against (only the common ones, not the full upstream list). Use before msg_elect_cnp to pick a partner.

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": "msg_list_dcas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds the important behavioral detail that only common DCAs are returned, not the full upstream list, which annotations don't cover.

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?

Two sentences: first states the action and scope, second gives usage instruction. No redundant or missing words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and limitation adequately. Could mention prerequisites, but not required.

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 100% (no parameters), so baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter info, but that's unnecessary. The usage context enhances value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool lists Direct Connect Aggregators/CNPs used by WARP, specifies it returns only common ones, and distinguishes from sibling msg_elect_cnp by explicitly framing it as a preparatory step.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly instructs to use before msg_elect_cnp to pick a partner, providing clear context. Does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but the sibling context makes it sufficient.

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