Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
saas-alerts-mcp

saas-alerts-mcp

by am3cramirez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

saas_alerts_customers_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a complete list of SaaS Alerts customers for the authenticated partner to streamline account management and security monitoring.

Instructions

List all SaaS Alerts customers for the authenticated 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": "saas_alerts_customers_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope 'for the authenticated partner,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavior, which is a gap given that no output schema exists.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and resource, with no redundant words. It earns its place perfectly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple list tool with zero parameters, strong safety annotations, and clear purpose, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, the scope, and implies the return of a list. No additional details are necessary for correct selection and invocation.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description reinforces that there are no filters by saying 'all customers.' Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools; no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all SaaS Alerts customers') and a scope qualifier ('for the authenticated partner'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like saas_alerts_customers_get (single customer) and user listing tools.

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 phrase 'List all' implies this is the tool for broad enumeration of customers, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'for a single customer, use saas_alerts_customers_get' or 'for users, use saas_alerts_users_list_partner'. The usage guidance is implied rather than 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