Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
workflow-atlas

workflow-atlas

by claudiu-deving
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_shared

List all shared components with their single status, deep-link URLs, and mounting cards.

Instructions

List shared components (transcluded boards): every sheet marked shared or mounted via a node.boardRef, with its single status, its deep-link url (#sheetId), and the cards that mount it. Derived, not stored.

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_shared"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the data is 'Derived, not stored', indicating it is computed on the fly and has no side effects. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or other constraints that might affect invocation.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey all essential information without extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its derived nature. It could mention if there are any limits, ordering, or pagination, but for a parameterless list tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0 parameters, so the description need not add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies per guidelines. The description does not include any parameter information, which is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'shared components (transcluded boards)', specifying that it returns every sheet marked shared or mounted via node.boardRef, along with its status, deep-link URL, and mounting cards. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_sheets or list_files.

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 description implies usage for retrieving shared components but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on context or prerequisites is given.

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