Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SuperDev

SuperDev

by Xsxdot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

List language runtime providers

list_language_runtime_providers
Read-only

Identify available language runtime providers before creating a language service. Select a supported provider to ensure compatibility.

Instructions

Return languages with runtime providers. Use before creating a language service so you can choose a supported provider.

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_language_runtime_providers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only. The description adds the scoping to 'with runtime providers' and the usage timing, but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as sorting, filtering, or return format. With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, and this meets it without being rich.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the action, the second gives the usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Ideal conciseness.

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?

For a simple no-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is complete: it says what it returns and when to use it. It could mention that the returned data consists of language names or provider identifiers, but the sibling context and title make this inferable. Overall, adequate.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. Baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it doesn't add misleading info.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return languages with runtime providers.' This is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like suggest_service_runtime or describe_language_runtime_schema, though the 'list' and 'providers' wording makes it distinct enough.

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?

The description provides clear context: 'Use before creating a language service so you can choose a supported provider.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is explicit.

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