List configured Argo CD environment profiles (qa, stg, prod) with URLs and authentication status; optionally validates tokens to detect expired sessions.
List configured Argo CD environment profiles (qa, stg, prod, etc.) with URLs and authentication status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| validateTokens | No | When true, probes /api/v1/session/userinfo to detect expired tokens (slower). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It implies read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state safety. Parameter description adds detail on validateTokens behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One clear, concise sentence with no filler; efficiently states purpose and outputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description covers purpose and return content (URLs and auth status) adequately for a simple tool with one optional param and no output schema; slight lack of output format detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear param description. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, meeting baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists configured Argo CD environment profiles with URLs and auth status, distinct from siblings like list-applications or list-projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or alternatives; lacks context on when to prefer this over sibling tools like argocd_auth_status or search-argocd-endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/godrix/mcp-argocd'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server