@runehand/mcp-server

List bots

list_bots

List all bots in your workspace with pagination support. Retrieve bot details by providing page and per_page parameters.

Instructions

List the bots that belong to the workspace that owns the API key.

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_bots"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`per_page`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the scope (workspace owning the API key) but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens if no bots exist. For a read-only list operation, it's minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the action 'List'.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, no nested objects, only two optional pagination params), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks any mention of pagination behavior or response format, which could be useful for an agent. It's adequate for a simple list tool but could be slightly more informative.

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 0%, but the parameters (page, per_page) are self-explanatory from their names and types. The description does not add any detail about pagination semantics, but the schema provides basic constraints. Since there are only two simple parameters, the description's lack of detail is acceptable but not ideal.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists bots belonging to the workspace, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_flows and list_conversations by specifying 'bots' and the workspace scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage for listing bots in the current workspace, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_flows or list_conversations. It doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so it's adequate but lacks explicit context.

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

Deploy Server