Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
drebedengi-mcp

drebedengi-mcp

by hawk911
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Счета / места хранения

list_accounts
Read-only

Retrieve every wallet, card, and bank account with its ID to identify the account to check balances, add expenses, or make transfers.

Instructions

Список счетов (кошельки, карты, банки) с id. Остатки — через get_balance.

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_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_hiddenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the description needn't restate safety. It usefully adds that each account carries an id, which tells the agent the result is meant to feed other tools. It does not disclose whether hidden accounts are excluded by default or how results are ordered/paginated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the disambiguation pointer. Nothing is redundant.

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 trivial read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers core purpose and routing adequately. The unexplained include_hidden flag is the one real completeness hole, and it is left entirely to guesswork.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the only parameter, include_hidden, is never mentioned. The description therefore leaves the agent unable to tell whether hidden accounts appear by default or how to request them, which is precisely the gap the description should close.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Список счетов') and clarifies the resource with concrete examples (wallets, cards, banks). It also notes that entries come 'с id', implying the identifier is returned for chaining. It is clearly distinct from the named sibling get_balance, though it stops short of a fully self-contained statement of scope.

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?

Explicitly routes balance lookups to get_balance ('Остатки — через get_balance'), which is exactly the kind of alternative-selection guidance an agent needs against a sibling. It gives no exclusion or precondition guidance, and says nothing about when hidden accounts matter.

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