Skip to main content
Glama
progress-all

ACOMO MCP Server

by progress-all

List components

list_components

Retrieve a complete list of API schema components (components.schemas) from ACOMO MCP Server for easy API exploration and schema inspection.

Instructions

acomoのAPIスキーマ(components.schemas)の一覧を返す

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • src/server.ts:247-259 (registration)
    Registers the 'list_components' MCP tool, including schema and inline handler.
    server.registerTool(
      "list_components",
      {
        title: "List components",
        description: "acomoのAPIスキーマ(components.schemas)の一覧を返す",
        inputSchema: {},
      },
      async () => ({
        content: [
          { type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(await listComponents()) },
        ],
      })
    );
  • The tool handler function that calls the listComponents helper and returns the result as JSON-formatted text content.
    async () => ({
      content: [
        { type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(await listComponents()) },
      ],
    })
  • Tool metadata and input schema definition (empty input as it takes no parameters).
    {
      title: "List components",
      description: "acomoのAPIスキーマ(components.schemas)の一覧を返す",
      inputSchema: {},
    },
  • Helper function that loads the OpenAPI specification and extracts the list of component schema names.
    export async function listComponents(): Promise<string[]> {
      const spec = await loadOpenApi();
      return Object.keys(spec.components?.schemas ?? {});
    }
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 states the tool returns a list but doesn't describe the format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or potential errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity (e.g., by adding context about usage).

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 tool's complexity (simple list operation) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (e.g., format, fields) or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't have 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スキーマ(components.schemas)の一覧を返す' (returns a list of acomo API schema components). It specifies the verb ('returns a list') and resource ('acomo API schema components'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_component' or 'list_apis', which would require a 5.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'describe_component' (for detailed info on a single component) or 'list_apis' (for listing APIs), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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