Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
esp32-iphone-agent

esp32-iphone-agent

by onehumanbeing
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

intent_list

Lists saved intents with IDs, names, prompts, and hint/step counts, helping AI agents review reusable iPhone automation instructions before selecting one.

Instructions

Saved intents: id, name, prompt, number of hints and steps.

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": "intent_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The field summary provides some information about the expected result, but the description does not explicitly establish read-only behavior, whether all saved intents are returned, or how results are ordered. With no annotations, it also leaves the result container, empty-result behavior, and any pagination entirely unstated.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every listed field providing useful information. Its sentence-fragment style and omission of an explicit action verb slightly reduce clarity and polish.

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?

For a simple zero-argument listing tool, the description is minimally adequate because it identifies the resource and expected summary fields. However, the absence of both annotations and an output schema makes the missing result-shape, read-only, ordering, and sibling-selection details more consequential.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no input semantics requiring explanation and the baseline score of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on returned data rather than inventing filtering or selection inputs.

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?

The description identifies the resource as saved intents and specifies the listed fields: id, name, prompt, and counts of hints and steps. Although it lacks an explicit verb such as "Lists" and does not directly distinguish itself from intent_show, its purpose is readily inferable with the tool name.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool or when another tool would be preferable. An agent must infer that it is useful for enumeration or discovery rather than inspecting one intent in detail, with no comparison to intent_show.

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