Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SuperDev

SuperDev

by Xsxdot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

List services

list_services
Read-only

Retrieve all services and their deployment runtime state for a project to assess operational health and identify issues.

Instructions

Return services and deployment runtime state from the local SuperDev agent.

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_services"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNo
project_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that this is local ('from the local SuperDev agent') and includes 'deployment runtime state', which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose filtering behavior, return format, or other operational details.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the key information and is appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool.

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 read-only list tool, the description provides the core purpose but omits parameter usage and return-value details. No output schema exists, so the description could have briefly explained what 'runtime state' includes or how parameters filter, but it's not severely incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention project_id or project_name. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description doesn't clarify whether they filter services or how they interact (e.g., precedence, mutually exclusive).

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a clear resource ('services and deployment runtime state'), making the tool's function obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_projects by focusing on services and runtime state, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 purpose implies when to use (when service deployment state is needed), but there's no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_runtime_snapshot or list_projects could overlap, but no differentiation is provided.

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