Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bridge-mcp-server

bridge-mcp-server

by jianghua-developer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Templates

list_templates

Lists available project templates from the offline registry, filtering by optional kind, stack, or form using substring matches.

Instructions

单端候选菜单（L1）：离线读注册表过滤，kind/stack/form 可选（子串匹配； 受控值/同义词见 templates://catalog 词表提示）。

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_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formNo
kindNo
stackNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two useful behavioral traits: the read is offline (no network/registry mutation) and filters use substring matching. It omits what is returned when no filters are supplied, whether multiple filters combine as AND, and output/pagination behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core action and filter list with little waste. It is slightly undermined by unexplained domain jargon (L1, 单端).

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 three-optional-filter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers offline behavior, matching semantics, and a value reference, but leaves the return shape and default (unfiltered) behavior unspecified.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it names all three parameters (kind/stack/form), marks them optional, and states they are substring matches with controlled values referenced in templates://catalog. That is meaningful, but it still omits example values and how the filters interact.

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 specific action (offline read of a registry with filtering) and returns a candidate template list, matching the list_templates name. However, the jargon '单端候选菜单（L1）' is opaque and it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling listers like list_combos or get_template_params.

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?

It implies usage context by noting the read is offline and the filters are optional, and it points to templates://catalog for controlled values. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with the sibling listing tools (list_combos, get_template_params).

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