Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tap

tap

by alecbolingbroke
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_cards

Lists known cards with slug, name, annual fee, and whether the user holds each, so you can map user-mentioned cards to Tap slugs.

Instructions

Lists the cards Tap knows (slug, name, annual fee) and which ones the user holds. Use it to match what the user says to slugs.

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_cards"
  }
}

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?

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape and that results are user-specific ("which ones the user holds"), implying per-user context without arguments, but it says nothing about whether the catalog is complete, how the user is identified, or whether missing cards mean unknown slugs.

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, no filler. The output contents are front-loaded and the usage note follows immediately, so the agent gets purpose and call-trigger in one read.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when to call it. The only modest gap is that it never explains how the "user holds" determination is made, which matters for a tool that appears to depend on implicit user context.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param schema is 4. The description implicitly confirms this by describing an unfiltered listing rather than any input criteria.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists the cards") plus the exact fields returned (slug, name, annual fee) and an added dimension (which cards the user holds). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from set_my_cards or the other siblings, so it falls 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear affirmative use case: "Use it to match what the user says to slugs," which tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right call. It offers no when-not guidance or named alternative, but the single stated scenario is unambiguous.

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