Skip to main content
Glama
progress-all

ACOMO MCP Server

by progress-all

List APIs

list_apis

Retrieve a complete list of APIs available in the ACOMO MCP Server for API exploration and backend service interaction.

Instructions

acomoのAPI一覧を返す

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/server.ts:34-46 (registration)
    Registers the 'list_apis' MCP tool with an empty input schema. The handler serializes the result of listOperations() as JSON text content.
    server.registerTool(
      "list_apis",
      {
        title: "List APIs",
        description: "acomoのAPI一覧を返す",
        inputSchema: {},
      },
      async () => ({
        content: [
          { type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(await listOperations()) },
        ],
      })
    );
  • The tool handler function passed to registerTool, which calls listOperations() and returns the result as JSON-formatted text.
    async () => ({
      content: [
        { type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(await listOperations()) },
      ],
    })
  • TypeScript type definition for an API Operation, used as the structure for list_apis output.
    export type Operation = {
      operationId?: string;
      method: string;
      path: string;
      summary?: string;
    };
  • Main helper function that loads the OpenAPI specification and extracts a list of operations (operationId, method, path, summary). This is the core logic executed by the list_apis tool.
    export async function listOperations(): Promise<Operation[]> {
      const spec = await loadOpenApi();
      const result: Operation[] = [];
      for (const [path, methods] of Object.entries(spec.paths ?? {})) {
        for (const [method, op] of Object.entries(methods ?? {})) {
          // skip non-http verbs
          if (
            !["get", "post", "put", "delete", "patch", "head", "options"].includes(
              method.toLowerCase()
            )
          )
            continue;
          result.push({
            operationId: (op as any)?.operationId,
            method: method.toUpperCase(),
            path,
            summary: (op as any)?.summary,
          });
        }
      }
      return result;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('returns a list of APIs') without detailing behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase in Japanese—and front-loaded with the core function. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the returned list includes (e.g., API names, IDs, metadata), format (e.g., JSON array), or any behavioral context. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more detail is needed to ensure the agent can invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is assigned since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'acomoのAPI一覧を返す' (returns a list of APIs for acomo). It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('API list'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_api' or 'api_schemas', which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'describe_api' (likely for detailed API info) and 'api_schemas' (possibly for schema details), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'list_apis'. This lack of comparative guidance limits its utility.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/progress-all/acomo-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server