Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@millwork/solver-mcp

@millwork/solver-mcp

Official
by millworkdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

solver_list_arms

List a tenant's registered arms with optional filters for kind, status, limit, and cursor. Returns arms and next_cursor to handle pagination.

Instructions

List the tenant's registered arms (GET /v1/arms). Returns { arms, next_cursor }.

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": "solver_list_arms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
limitNo
cursorNo
statusNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the HTTP method (GET), the resource scope, and the return envelope, which implies a read-only paginated list operation. However, it does not explain pagination semantics, authentication needs, or behavior when no arms exist.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then gives the endpoint and return shape. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It provides the return shape but omits parameter explanations and pagination/usage context, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names and enums alone.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It adds no explicit meaning for 'kind', 'limit', 'cursor', or 'status'. The mention of 'next_cursor' weakly implies that 'cursor' is a pagination token, but the other parameter purposes are left entirely to inference from the schema enums and names.

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 states a clear action ('List'), a specific resource ('the tenant's registered arms'), and the HTTP endpoint. It is distinguishable from siblings like solver_register_arm and solver_enable_model_arm because it is explicitly a read-only listing operation.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as solver_list_model_deployments, solver_register_arm, or solver_enable_model_arm. An agent might infer it is for enumerating arms, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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