Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ArchScript MCP

ArchScript MCP

by schlummer13
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

List open documents

list_documents
Read-only

Lists open ArchScript documents with ID, file name, project, validity, and size, placing the frontmost window first so you can identify and select active models.

Instructions

Open ArchScript documents with id, file name, project name, validity and size. The first entry is the frontmost window.

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": "list_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest: it discloses the returned fields and, importantly, the ordering rule that the first entry is the frontmost window. It does not mention whether closed or archived documents are excluded beyond the word 'open', which holds it back from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, with the returned-field summary front-loaded and the ordering note second. No filler, though the opening noun phrase lacks a verb and reads slightly like a caption rather than an instruction.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, so describing the fields and the ordering is exactly the right compensation, and a parameterless list tool needs little else. Only the boundary of 'open' (what is excluded) is left unstated.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and fully covered. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 names the resource and scope precisely: open ArchScript documents, with the returned fields (id, file name, project name, validity, size) spelled out. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, and it does not name a sibling, but 'open documents' distinguishes it plainly from get_document or review.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point before calling get_document or validate, but the description never states when to use it versus those siblings or any prerequisite. With zero parameters the risk is low, yet no explicit guidance is offered.

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