Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
slidecold-mcp

slidecold-mcp

by slidecold
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List audiences

list_audiences
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve available audiences, optionally filtered by folder ID, to review target groups for campaign and import workflows.

Instructions

List audiences. Required API key scope: audiences:read. GET /audiences

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_audiences"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderIdNoFolder id, or `root` for items not in any folder.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the required API key scope (audiences:read) and the underlying GET /audiences endpoint, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by auth scope and endpoint in a compact three-line layout with no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing written is wasted.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. Gaps remain around pagination/result size behavior, which matters for a list operation, and there is no output schema to compensate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single optional folderId parameter is fully documented in the schema including the `root` sentinel. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"List audiences" names a verb and resource and, by using "List", distinguishes itself from get_audience/update_audience/delete_audience siblings. However, it is essentially the tool name repeated, with no statement of scope, filtering, or what an audience listing contains.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_audience (single fetch) or list_audience_members (enumeration of members), nor any prerequisite beyond the scope line. The agent must infer the selection criteria from sibling names alone.

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