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

saas-alerts-mcp

by am3cramirez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

saas_alerts_reports_list_scheduled

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all scheduled reports configured for the authenticated partner account to review and manage report delivery.

Instructions

List all scheduled reports configured 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_reports_list_scheduled"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the scope 'authenticated partner,' which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction; it effectively communicates the safe, read-only nature.

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?

A single, concise sentence that directly states the action and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 operation with no parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It fully conveys the tool's function and scope, and the annotations cover safety aspects.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description adds no parameter details because none exist; nothing is 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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'scheduled reports' and clarifies scope as 'configured for the authenticated partner.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scheduled, create_scheduled, and delete_scheduled.

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: it lists all scheduled reports for the partner. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling names imply distinctions.

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