Skip to main content
Glama

list_assessment_plans

Lists loaded OSCAL Assessment Plans with UUID, title, child count, and size, helping you choose a query_value for query_assessment_plan; results are paged.

Instructions

List loaded OSCAL Assessment Plans with UUID, title, child count, and size. Use when picking a query_value for query_assessment_plan. Results are paged.

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_assessment_plans"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum items per page, 1-100.
offsetNoZero-based index of the first item.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum items per page, 1-100."
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Added value: +"Zero-based index of the first item."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavior burden. It discloses that only 'loaded' plans appear and that results are paged, which is useful context, but says nothing about ordering, permissions, or what an empty result implies.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then the usage condition, then paging. No sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the exact returned fields and flagging paging. For a two-param list tool this is nearly complete, though a note on default page size or ordering would finish it.

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 100%, so limit and offset are fully documented in the schema with ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond noting paging, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (loaded OSCAL Assessment Plans) and enumerates the returned fields (UUID, title, child count, size). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as query_assessment_plan and list_assessment_results.

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?

Explicitly names the condition for use: picking a `query_value` for query_assessment_plan, which routes the agent from discovery to drill-down. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or mention of other listing alternatives, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.