Skip to main content
Glama
getsimba-ai

Simba MCP Server

Official
by getsimba-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List Studies

list_studies
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve project-owned studies, questions, budgets, and access rights. Use pagination with a cursor to navigate large result sets.

Instructions

List project-owned studies, questions, budgets and access rights. 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
project_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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: the opt-in paging mechanism (limit 1-200, cursor flow, null ends), the fact that missing rows are simply absent, and that no totals are promised. This aligns with and enriches the openWorldHint and is highly transparent.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the paging details. Every sentence adds unique value—scoping, paging mechanics, and absence semantics. No wasted words, perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool is a paged list operation with an output schema present. The description covers the paging protocol, the open-world behavior, and the absence of totals, which is exactly what an agent needs to call it correctly. Return values are presumably in the output schema, so the description is complete without repeating them.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains limit (1-200, paging) and cursor (return as-is for next page, null ends). It does not describe project_id, but its name and requirement make its purpose self-evident from context. The description compensates well for two of three params, with the third being obvious.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource scope ('project-owned studies, questions, budgets and access rights'). It distinguishes this from other list tools by enumerating the entity types, but it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g., get_study or list_study_runs), so it doesn't fully meet the 5-bar for explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description explains paging behavior and that rows may be absent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_study or list_study_runs. The usage is implied (list everything owned by a project) but no clear exclusions or conditions are given, so it meets the baseline for implied usage without explicit guidance.

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