Gantry

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_crew_setups

Read-only

Lists crew setups for a session, enabling agents to inspect available execution contexts and select the appropriate setup.

Instructions

list crew setups

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "arguments": "<arguments>"
    },
    "name": "list_crew_setups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`arguments`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.4.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations already tell the agent this is a safe read, so the description owes context beyond that. It adds none: no indication of pagination, filtering behavior, whether results span sessions, or what happens with the opaque basis/intent objects. It does not contradict the annotations, but its contribution is nil.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Three words are technically front-loaded and waste-free, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing here earns its place because nothing informative is present.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has nested object parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, which puts the full explanatory burden on the description. With only the read-only annotations to lean on, the definition leaves an agent unable to construct a valid, meaningful call.

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 description coverage is 0% across 2 parameters, including a nested arguments object with undocumented basis, intent, and session_id properties. The description supplies no meaning for any of them, so an agent has no way to know what basis or intent should contain.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"list crew setups" restates the tool name verbatim with no added specificity: no statement of what a crew setup is, what scope is listed, or what is returned. It also does nothing to separate it from the nearby sibling get_crew_setup, which an agent could easily confuse with this listing tool.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative. The sibling list contains get_crew_setup and dozens of other list_* tools, and the description offers nothing to help pick among them.

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