Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Broker Analysis MCP

Broker Analysis MCP

by chetto1983
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_hooks

Read-only

Retrieve saved condition hooks, including each hook's condition, action, and last delivered event, to review alert logic and delivery history.

Instructions

Saved condition hooks with their condition, action and last delivered event.

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_hooks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each entry carries its condition, action, and last delivered event, which is useful payload context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about whether all hooks are returned or how delivery history is bounded.

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?

A single compact clause with no filler, front-loaded with the resource. It is arguably terse rather than wasteful, and the returned-field list is placed where it does the most work.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming three returned fields, but it omits scope (all hooks vs. filtered), ordering, and any pagination or size limits. For a zero-argument read tool that is adequate but leaves real gaps for an open-world listing.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description's field list describes output rather than inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource (saved condition hooks) and enumerates the fields surfaced (condition, action, last delivered event), but it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the listing action is only inferred from the tool name. It does not explicitly contrast with run_hooks or create_hook, leaving sibling differentiation to the names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to call this versus run_hooks, create_hook, or delete_hook, and no stated preconditions. An agent must infer that this is the inspection path for existing hooks purely from the word 'Saved'.

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