Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jira-xray-cloud-mcp

jira-xray-cloud-mcp

by netcare-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Xray List Toolsets

xray_list_toolsets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a list of all Xray toolsets, see which tools are enabled, and determine if the server is read-only.

Instructions

List all Xray toolsets (read and write halves), which tools are enabled, and whether the server is read-only.

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": "xray_list_toolsets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's only added behavioral hint is the 'read and write halves' toolset structure and that read-only status is reported, both of which largely restate deliverable content the output schema already covers.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema handling return details, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It could have added a one-line routing hint in a 70+ tool catalog, which is the only real gap.

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; there is nothing for the description to clarify, and schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 concrete verb and resource ('List all Xray toolsets') plus the specific content returned ('which tools are enabled, and whether the server is read-only'). It is unambiguous, but it never contrasts itself with siblings (no other toolset-listing tool exists, yet no routing hint is given in this crowded catalog).

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?

Usage is only implied by the return content: an agent can infer it should call this to discover toolsets and enabled tools. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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