Skip to main content
Glama
canopy-labs

Featureflip

Official
by canopy-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List feature flags

list_flags
Read-only

List feature flags in a project, filtering by search, tag, type, owner, or archived status. Returns paginated results with each flag's owner for auditing and cleanup.

Instructions

List feature flags in a project. Filter with search (key/name substring), tag, type, archived, owner. Each flag carries its owner ({id, email, name}, or null when unowned). Paginated via cursor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNo
typeNo
limitNo
ownerNoOnly flags with this owner: an email, "me" for the token's own user, or "none" for unowned flags
cursorNo
searchNo
projectYesProject key
archivedNotrue = only archived, false = only active

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.9
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only flags with this owner: an email, \"me\" for the token's own user, or \"none\" for unowned flags",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real context: the owner object shape ({id, email, name} or null when unowned) and cursor-based pagination. It still omits the response envelope and default page size/limit behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then filters, with no wasted wording. Slightly dense enumeration but efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description usefully carries the owner-null shape and pagination contract, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. Completeness holds, though filtering defaults and result ordering are not addressed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is only 38%, and the schema already documents owner and archived. The description adds one genuinely new detail — that search matches key/name substrings — and confirms cursor pagination, but leaves limit and other param semantics undocumented.

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 ('List feature flags in a project') with clear scope. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_flag (single) or find_stale_flags, so an agent gets no explicit routing signal.

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?

It enumerates the available filters, which implies when filtering is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_flag, find_stale_flags, or other listing tools. Usage is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.

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