Skip to main content
Glama
clearskies-py

clearskies MCP Server

by clearskies-py
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

list_available_authentication

List all available clearskies authentication types with a short description of each.

Instructions

List all available clearskies authentication types with a short description of each.

Authentication types are used to secure endpoints. They can be attached to endpoints
via the authentication parameter.

Example:
    clearskies.endpoints.RestfulApi(
        model_class=User,
        authentication=clearskies.authentication.SecretBearer(
            environment_key="API_SECRET"
        ),
        readable_column_names=["id", "name", "email"],
        writeable_column_names=["name", "email"],
        searchable_column_names=["name", "email"],
        sortable_column_names=["name"],
        default_sort_column_name="name",
    )

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the result is an informational catalog of authentication types and how they are consumed, which is useful context, but it omits any description of the return shape, pagination, or prerequisites (the output schema exists but the description doesn't reference it).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first sentence is front-loaded and precise, but the bulk of the text is a long code example whose lines (readable/writeable/searchable columns, sorting) are largely irrelevant to the act of listing authentication types. The example illustrates endpoint wiring more than this tool, so a significant fraction of the text does not directly earn its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter catalog tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and the role of the items returned, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. The only gap is routing guidance against sibling discovery tools, which is not strictly required to invoke it.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing parameter-related because there is nothing to add; the empty input schema is fully self-explanatory.

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 ('List') and resource ('all available clearskies authentication types'), plus what each entry contains ('a short description of each'). It is clearly distinguishable from detail-oriented siblings like get_authentication_info, but it never explicitly names or contrasts against those siblings, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 explains the domain role of the returned items ('used to secure endpoints... attached to endpoints via the authentication parameter') and shows an example, so usage is implied. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus the many sibling list_available_* or get_authentication_info tools.

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