Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dzstudio-mcp

dzstudio-mcp

by siemendev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_servers

Lists configured dzStudio collaboration servers with names, addresses, sign-in status, and agent admission details.

Instructions

The configured dzStudio collaboration servers: name, address, signed in, and whether they admit agents.

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_servers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned attributes (address, signed-in flag, agent-admission flag), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It still omits whether the call is strictly read-only, whether it requires prior authentication, ordering or count of results, and behavior on empty configuration.

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?

A single compact clause with zero filler, and the resource is front-loaded ahead of the attribute list. It reads as a fragment rather than a statement of action, which slightly weakens the lead.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free read tool, the description covers what comes back at a field level, which is the main risk area. It leaves the caller unable to tell whether authentication is a prerequisite or what happens when no servers are configured.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the resource (dzStudio collaboration servers) and enumerates the attributes returned (name, address, signed-in state, agent admission), which goes beyond the bare name. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, and it never distinguishes this from siblings like add_server, which is the obvious adjacent operation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as add_server for adding a server or login for signing in. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the discovery step before connecting.

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