Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Codemm

Codemm

by iignaite
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_tracks

Retrieve installed language and framework tracks with their versions and test styles to identify available coding environments for exercises.

Instructions

List installed tracks (language or framework environments) with their versions and test styles.

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_tracks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially discharges it by disclosing what the listing surfaces (versions and test styles). It never states that the call is side-effect free, where tracks are read from, or whether results are paginated or cached, so the behavioral picture is only partially drawn.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the parenthetical definition plus return-content clause each carry real information. Nothing is redundant with the tool name alone.

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-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it identifies the resource and the key fields returned. It stops short of naming the full record shape (e.g., identifiers or install paths) or confirming a read-only contract, which would make it airtight.

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, so there is no schema semantics for the description to supplement. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description adds the meaningful detail that entries include versions and test styles.

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 ("List") and resource ("tracks"), and clarifies the domain with a parenthetical gloss ("language or framework environments"). It also names what the listing includes (versions and test styles), so an agent can tell this is a discovery tool rather than the mutation-oriented save_track sibling.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The word "installed" implies a discovery role, but the agent must infer on its own that this belongs before save_track or alongside progress/get_roadmap.

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