Skip to main content
Glama
omnara-ai

omnara

Official
by omnara-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

List project machine pool grants

grant_pools_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

List grants for machine pools in an Omnara project, filter by name or pool ID, and paginate sorted results.

Instructions

Items are ordered by created_at descending, then id descending.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoCase-insensitive glob over the list's logical name. `*` matches zero or more characters, `?` matches one character, and `\` escapes a wildcard.
sortNoSort order for named resources that expose created and modified timestamps.
limitNoMaximum number of items to return in one page.
orgIDYes
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor. Omit for the first page.
projectIDYes
machine_pool_idNoReturn only the grant for this machine pool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific default ordering (created_at descending, then id descending), which is useful behavioral context, but it omits pagination behavior and what the returned grant items contain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is concise but severely under-specified. It is not front-loaded with purpose or usage, so the brevity reflects omission rather than efficient communication.

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?

For a 7-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is far too thin. It gives only ordering and omits purpose, usage, pagination, and return-value details that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 71%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how orgID/projectID or the filter/sort/pagination parameters interact with the ordering note.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description does not state what the tool does. It only provides an ordering note, leaving the purpose entirely to the title and name. This is missing rather than merely vague.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like grant_pools_get, grant_pools_add, or other list tools. There is no context, no exclusions, and no routing information.

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