Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aktar

Aktar

Official
by getaktar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List destinations

list_destinations
Read-only

Retrieve the storage destinations configured in Aktar, including provider, bucket, public link base, selection status, and file types, so you can choose where files are uploaded.

Instructions

List the storage destinations set up in Aktar: name, provider, bucket, public link base, whether it's the selected one, and the file types it's used for.

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_destinations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds the substantive behavior that matters here: exactly which destination attributes are exposed (provider, bucket, public link base, selected flag, file types). It does not say whether results are ordered or whether an empty list is possible, but the disclosure of returned content is meaningful above the annotation floor.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a compact field inventory. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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 zero-argument, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by naming each field. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering or the shape of the 'selected' flag, which is forgivable at this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filter or paging arguments.

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 names a specific verb (List) and resource (storage destinations set up in Aktar) and goes further by enumerating the exact attributes returned. It never distinguishes itself from near-neighbors such as list_bucket, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 named alternative. The only signal is the implicit 'list' framing, so an agent must infer that this is the discovery step before list_bucket or link-creation tools.

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