Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@argosvix/mcp-server

@argosvix/mcp-server

by argosvix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

list_annotations_by_label

Retrieve annotations with a specific label, sorted newest first. Use to collect rated calls or human reviews marked with a label.

Instructions

Return annotations carrying the given label, newest first (account-wide, up to 100). Use for things like collecting calls rated "good" or listing human reviews labeled "bug". Labels are ASCII letters / digits / underscore / hyphen only ([a-zA-Z0-9_-], up to 64 chars).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "list_annotations_by_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelYesTarget label (exact match with the label set at annotation creation)
limitNoNumber of annotations to return (1-100, default 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.30.0-alpha.14

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses sorting order, account-wide scope, and maximum return count, plus label format constraints. No contradictions.

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 efficient sentences: first states core function, second adds examples and format constraints. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: what it returns (annotations by label), ordering, scope, limit. Could mention pagination or response structure but not critical for a simple list tool.

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?

Schema covers both parameters fully. Description adds value via usage examples for the label parameter, clarifying its intent beyond the schema's technical description.

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 clearly states the tool returns annotations by label, with scope 'account-wide' and order 'newest first', distinguishing it from sibling list_annotations_for_call which is per-call.

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?

Provides concrete examples ('collecting calls rated good', 'listing human reviews labeled bug') that clarify when to use. Lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives, but context is clear.

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