mandarincow-wake-mcp

list_shared

List up to 1,000 keys in a shared namespace with metadata and trust status; authenticate using a Bearer token.

Instructions

GET /wake/v1/shared/{ns}. List keys in a shared namespace (up to 1000). Auth: Bearer token. Returns {ns, keys:[{key,bytes,content_type,written_by,written_at}], trust}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ns": "<ns>"
    },
    "name": "list_shared"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ns`	Yes
`token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose real traits: the operation is a read (GET), the auth method is a Bearer token, and the result is capped at 1000 keys. It does not say what happens past that cap (truncation vs. pagination) or how errors/large namespaces behave, which matters most for a list operation.

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?

Three short segments, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The response-shape sentence is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it is telegraphic rather than verbose.

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?

Low-complexity read tool with only two parameters; the description plus the existing output schema covers purpose, auth, and result cap. The one real gap is pagination/truncation semantics beyond 1000 keys.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: the path template {ns} identifies the namespace parameter, and 'Auth: Bearer token' explains the token parameter. It lacks only detail on acceptable namespace formats or default token resolution.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List keys in a shared namespace') and anchors it to the endpoint GET /wake/v1/shared/{ns}. It is clearly distinct from get_shared/put_shared by the 'list' verb, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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 by the verb: an agent can infer this is for enumerating keys rather than fetching a value, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_shared for retrieving a single key's content.

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

Deploy Server