Skip to main content
Glama
getsimba-ai

Simba MCP Server

Official
by getsimba-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List Recipe Drafts

list_recipe_drafts
Read-onlyIdempotent

List draft metadata for a study without loading full datasets, newest drafts first. Review available drafts and use optional paging to browse large lists efficiently.

Instructions

List study draft metadata without loading datasets, newest update first. Check backend draft capability first. Paging is opt-in: pass limit (1-200) to receive a page and next_cursor; send that cursor back unchanged for the next page; null next_cursor means the end. Without limit every row is returned. Rows you cannot see are simply absent; no totals are promised.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
cursorNo
study_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Cursor"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Limit"
+}
  2. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: paging semantics (opt-in limit, cursor flow, null means end), the 'no totals promised' disclosure, and the absence of rows you cannot see – all beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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?

Every sentence carries value: the primary action, the capability prerequisite, paging mechanics, and the absence-of-totals warning. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition – appropriate length for the amount of behavior it must clarify.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return format is covered. The description addresses capability requirements, paging behavior, ordering, and the open-world constraint. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing; the tool's complexity is limited to paging and capability checks, both fully described.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains limit and cursor with precise paging behavior, and study_id is inherently clear from the tool name and context. It does not explicitly document study_id meaning, but it is unambiguous given the description's opening line.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('study draft metadata') with a key differentiator ('without loading datasets') and ordering ('newest update first'). It clearly distinguishes from get_recipe_draft (single draft) and list_study_recipes (likely published recipes) without ambiguity.

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?

Gives a prerequisite ('Check backend draft capability first') and detailed paging instructions, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. The capability check implies using get_backend_capabilities, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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