Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
echoloc

echoloc

Official
by echoloc-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

List tracked technologies

list_technologies
Read-onlyIdempotent

Browse a catalog of 10,000+ technologies with per-company usage counts. Sort by most used or alphabetically to analyze technology adoption trends.

Instructions

Catalog of all technologies in the dataset with per-technology company counts. sort='count' (most used first) or 'name'.

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_technologies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
sortNocount
page_sizeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the sort behavior. No mention of data freshness, rate limits, or other traits. The description does not contradict 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no filler. Every word adds value. It front-loads the purpose and immediately specifies the key parameter behavior.

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 simple read-only list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and sort options. However, it does not mention pagination limits or the returned data structure, which is a minor gap. Overall adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the sort parameter (enum values) but omits page and page_size entirely. However, the schema has defaults and constraints for those, so an agent could infer. This is average coverage given the tool's simplicity.

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 all technologies with company counts, using the verb 'Catalog' and specifying the resource 'technologies'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_companies_by_technologies (which filters by tech) and get_company_by_domain (retrieves a single company).

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 gives sort options (count, name) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings. The context is implied as an overview of all technologies, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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