Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
umbra

umbra

by lxchx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Route List

route_list

Lists active routing rules and per-rule hit counts for a specified tab, enabling quick review of blocked or allowed actions.

Instructions

List active rules + per-rule hit counts.

Ex: route_list('t0') → {"routes":[{"id":"r0","action":"block","hits":12,...}]}

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tab_id": "<tab_id>"
    },
    "name": "route_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tab_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. The example implies a read operation returning route objects with id/action/hits, and the word 'active' hints that disabled rules are excluded, but permissions, pagination, and whether rule bodies are included remain unstated.

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?

One sentence of purpose plus a compact example; both are front-loaded and every element earns its place. 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required, and the description covers purpose plus a sample response shape. However, for a tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented parameter, the missing 'active' semantics and permission/error behavior leave gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required tab_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The example call route_list('t0') implicitly conveys that the argument is a tab identifier, which partially compensates but leaves format/validation requirements unstated.

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: list active rules with per-rule hit counts. This clearly distinguishes it from mutators like route_add or route_remove, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with route_captures, the other read-style 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?

No statement of when to use this versus route_captures (captured requests) or route_remove; the agent must infer from the name alone. The example shows a call but not the selection conditions.

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