Glasscubes MCP server

List information request templates

list_request_templates

Read-only

Retrieve information request templates and their item names account-wide, or for a specific workspace by passing workspace_id.

Instructions

Information request templates with their item names: account-wide templates, or with workspace_id the templates within that workspace (as documented).

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_request_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspace_id`	No	Passed as the API's workspaceId query parameter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are scoped account-wide or by workspace, but the trailing '(as documented)' is an unhelpful pointer rather than concrete behavioral detail (e.g., pagination, ordering).

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?

It is a single sentence, so not bloated, but the structure is awkward and the trailing '(as documented)' is filler that does not earn its place. The scoping condition would be clearer front-loaded as two distinct cases.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and a single optional parameter, the description conveys the result content and scoping. It omits ordering/pagination and any note on what 'item names' includes, leaving small but real gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the schema only says workspace_id maps to the API's workspaceId query parameter. The description adds the real semantic: passing it narrows results to templates within that workspace, versus account-wide templates when omitted.

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 the resource (information request templates) and what is returned (their item names), which separates it from get_information_request and list_information_requests. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other list_* siblings.

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?

It hints at the two usage modes (omit workspace_id for account-wide, pass it for workspace-scoped), which implies when to use each form. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over list_information_requests or other siblings, so usage is only implied.

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

Deploy Server