Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Engaging Networks MCP server

Engaging Networks MCP server

by dragosh29
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

List supporter questions

list_supporter_questions
Read-only

Retrieve opt-ins, confirmation opt-ins, and general questions defined in an Engaging Networks account, with ids, names, and types.

Instructions

The questions and opt-ins defined in the account: id, questionId, name and type (OPT = opt-in, CONF = opt-in needing confirmation, GEN = general question).

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_supporter_questions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_resultsNoMaximum number of questions to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by decoding the returned type codes (OPT/CONF/GEN), which is behavioral information not present anywhere else. It omits pagination/truncation behavior and the default result cap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the field enumeration and enum legend are both useful. Slightly awkward as a fragment rather than a statement of action.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and decodes the type values, which is exactly what an agent needs. Only pagination/limit semantics are left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100% — max_results is fully documented with default, minimum and maximum — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource ('the questions and opt-ins defined in the account') but uses no verb, so the listing action is only inferred from the tool name. It also does not distinguish itself from the singular sibling get_supporter_question. The added field list and type-code legend give it more substance than a pure name restatement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of scope relative to get_supporter_question, and no prerequisite or exclusion conditions. An agent must guess whether this or the singular getter is appropriate.

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