Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codeglance-mcp

codeglance-mcp

by lucidopus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_generated_guides

Retrieve a list of all generated guide files saved in the codeglance-analysis/guide directory. Use this to see available documentation outputs.

Instructions

List all generated guide files in the codeglance-analysis/guide directory.

Args:
    working_directory: Directory where codeglance-analysis folder should be located

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_generated_guides"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
working_directoryNo.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool does (list files) but does not disclose error behavior if the directory is missing or access issues. For a simple listing operation, the transparency is adequate but not detailed.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences and a parameter list. However, it partially duplicates the schema information. The structure is clear but could be more streamlined by focusing on unique insights.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately describes the resource and the parameter. However, it could mention what kind of guide files are listed (e.g., file types) to be fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning. It explains that working_directory should point to where the codeglance-analysis folder is located, clarifying the parameter's role beyond the schema's title. However, it does not describe the default behavior or constraints like valid formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'generated guide files in the codeglance-analysis/guide directory'. It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_repository and get_repository_info, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool.

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