Skip to main content
Glama

list_sections

List tracks with published sections and see which platforms (YouTube, X, Farcaster, TikTok) host each clip, so you can find content to embed, share, or analyze.

Instructions

List all tracks that have published sections (clips) with platform URLs.

Returns a summary of which sections are available on which platforms (YouTube, X, Farcaster, TikTok). Useful for finding content to embed, share, or analyze.

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_sections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only retrieval with no side effects, and the description discloses that the result is grouped per platform, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or whether tracks with zero published sections are omitted or merely empty.

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?

Two sentences, with the core scope stated first and the platform/usage detail following. The closing clause about embed/share/analyze is soft but still earns partial credit as routing context; nothing is redundant or padded.

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, read-only list tool with an output schema, this covers scope, grouping, and purpose adequately. The missing pieces (pagination, completeness of the track list) are minor for a tool this simple.

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 the baseline is 4. The platform names (YouTube, X, Farcaster, TikTok) refer to returned data rather than inputs, and the output schema already covers the return shape.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it lists tracks whose sections (clips) have published platform URLs. That is clearly distinct from a per-track fetch, but it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_sections, so the agent must infer that this is the catalog-wide listing while get_sections is the targeted lookup.

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 offers intended use cases ('finding content to embed, share, or analyze'), which implies when to reach for it. It gives no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_sections or list_tracks, and no prerequisites or ordering expectations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.