Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
specter-skills

specter-skills

by dirtcubeinteractive
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List level / progression systems

specter_list_progression_systems
Read-only

Retrieve configured level and progression systems from your Specter project. Get IDs and slugs to reference when creating other entities.

Instructions

List the level / progression systems configured in this Specter project. Returns ids/slugs you can reference when creating other entities. Requires a one-time browser sign-in (specter_login).

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": "specter_list_progression_systems"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
searchNo
projectIdNoDefaults to the auto-detected project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds that it requires a browser sign-in (specter_login) and specifies return values (ids/slugs), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose, second adds usage context and prerequisite. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple list tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, return value hints, and a prerequisite. Could be improved by detailing the output structure more, but overall adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only projectId has a description). The description adds no information about the parameters (limit, search, projectId), failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 lists progression systems and returns IDs/slugs for referencing in other entities. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying the resource type.

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?

The description mentions a prerequisite (one-time browser sign-in via specter_login) and implies usage before creating entities that need progression system IDs, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives.

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