Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rata-mcp

rata-mcp

by fuhidev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ghm_list_profiles

Lists antidetect browser profiles with optional name filtering and pagination, serving as a legacy v1 alias for older profile-listing workflows.

Instructions

[Legacy v1 alias] List antidetect browser profiles. Recommend using rata_list_profiles.

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": "ghm_list_profiles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoLọc profile theo tên
pageNoSố trang cần lấy (mặc định: 1)
limitNoSố lượng profile mỗi trang (mặc định: 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral-disclosure burden. It discloses the legacy alias and preferred alternative, and 'List' implies a read operation, but it does not state permissions, rate limits, or return behavior.

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 two short sentences with zero wasted wording. The legacy status and alternative recommendation are front-loaded and easy to act on.

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?

For a simple list tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, legacy status, and alternative routing. It could additionally mention return format or read-only behavior, but the remaining gap is minor.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters: name filtering, page, and limit. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List antidetect browser profiles.' It also identifies the tool as a '[Legacy v1 alias]' and names the preferred sibling 'rata_list_profiles,' so an agent can distinguish it from alternatives without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly recommends using 'rata_list_profiles' instead, giving clear routing guidance. It implies this tool exists for legacy compatibility but does not state precise when-to-use conditions beyond that legacy status.

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