Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
COR MCP Server

COR MCP Server

by fxckcode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

cor_list_contracts

List contracts from COR with pagination controls for page number and results per page.

Instructions

List contracts.

Args: page: Page number (default: 1) per_page: Results per page (default: 20)

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": "cor_list_contracts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
per_pageNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses pagination behavior via page/per_page parameters, which is good. But it does not mention scope (e.g., which contracts are listed), ordering, or any access restrictions. Basic disclosure, not comprehensive.

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?

Extremely concise: one-line purpose followed by parameter list. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 list tool with 2 params and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks mention of what subset of contracts is returned (e.g., all contracts for the user's organization) and does not leverage sibling tool context to differentiate. Adequate but with room for improvement.

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 description shoulders the burden. It repeats parameter names, types, and defaults but adds minimal context: 'Page number' and 'Results per page.' No extra semantics like max values or indexing. Adequate but not enriched.

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?

Description starts with 'List contracts,' which is a specific verb and resource (list + contracts). However, among many sibling list tools (e.g., cor_list_clients, cor_list_projects), there is no differentiation or unique scope mentioned, so it's clear but not distinguishing.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like cor_get_contract or other list tools. Usage is implied: when a paginated list is needed. Score 3 for implied usage without exclusions or alternatives.

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