Skip to main content
Glama
safiyu

kontexta

by safiyu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

hands.list

Lists project commands an agent may run, including scope, danger level, and confirmation flag. Pass schema:true for the kontexta.json authoring reference to write or fix configs.

Instructions

List every Hands command tool currently registered, with project scope, tool name, danger level, confirmation flag, and description. Hands tools come from per-project kontexta.json files loaded at register time. Pass schema: true to instead get the complete kontexta.json authoring reference (JSON schema, validation rules, security guarantees, limitations, annotated example) — a static document, unrelated to any specific registered hand. Read-only; no side effects, auth, or rate limits. Use the default list mode to discover what side-effectful project commands the agent is permitted to run; use schema: true when helping a user write or fix a kontexta.json; reload after editing one with hands.reload.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemaNoIf true, return the kontexta.json authoring reference document instead of the registered-hands list. Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv5.0.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / schema
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "If true, return the kontexta.json authoring reference document instead of the registered-hands list. Default false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Addedv4.7.2

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects, auth, or rate limits' and clarifies that the schema mode is a static document 'unrelated to any specific registered hand'. This gives an agent reliable expectations about safety and scope without needing annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by context, mode explanation, safety guarantee, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the default output contains, what the schema mode contains, the registered-at-load-time context, safety profile, and the appropriate use cases. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema: it explains what `schema: true` returns (complete authoring reference with validation rules, security guarantees, limitations, annotated example) and clarifies it is static and unrelated to registered hands. This exceeds the schema's simple boolean explanation.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List every Hands command tool currently registered', followed by the exact output fields (project scope, tool name, danger level, confirmation flag, description). It clearly distinguishes the default mode from the `schema: true` mode and is distinct from siblings like `hands.reload` and `hands.confirm`.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use each mode: default list mode for discovering permitted side-effectful project commands, and `schema: true` when helping a user write or fix a `kontexta.json`. It also names the sibling `hands.reload` as the follow-up action after editing, providing clear routing among alternatives.

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