Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
workflow-atlas

workflow-atlas

by claudiu-deving
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_sheets

List all sheets in an atlas with IDs, names, titles, per-status node counts, and revision info to preview available content before drilling into specific sheets or nodes.

Instructions

Table of contents: every sheet's id/code/name/title/sub + per-status node counts + its current rev (the concurrency token), with NO boards — the cheap way to see what exists before reading any board. Start here, then drill in with get_sheet / get_node.

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_sheets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explains it returns no boards and is 'the cheap way,' indicating lightweight behavior. It lists returned data (id/code/name/title/sub, node counts, concurrency token), adding context beyond the schema. No annotations to contradict.

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 front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence enumerates contents and nature, the second gives usage advice. Ideal conciseness.

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?

It adequately describes what the tool returns despite no output schema. It covers all relevant aspects: sheet identifiers, node counts, and concurrency token. No need for more detail.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description doesn't need to explain them. The baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description adds meaning by detailing what is returned.

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 it provides a table of contents for sheets with specific fields (id/code/name/title/sub, node counts, revision) and explicitly excludes boards, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sheet.

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?

It advises 'Start here, then drill in with get_sheet / get_node,' providing a clear workflow. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the recommendation implies it's for initial exploration.

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