Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dolphin-anty-mcp

dolphin-anty-mcp

by someorgyouwontcareabout
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List profile ids in a folder

get_folder_profile_ids
Read-only

Retrieve all profile IDs from a folder and check for password-protected profiles.

Instructions

Return the profile ids inside a folder plus whether any of them is password-protected.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_folder_profile_ids"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds useful context by mentioning the password-protected flag and folder scope. It does not describe return format or errors, but this is acceptable given the 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?

One concise sentence with no filler, directly stating what the tool does and what it returns. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with open-world annotation, the description covers the main output. However, it lacks explicit parameter binding and any mention of edge cases like folder not existing. Overall adequate for the low complexity.

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?

The schema has a single 'id' integer with no description. The description says 'inside a folder' but never explicitly states that the id parameter is the folder ID; this must be inferred from the tool name/title. With 0% schema coverage, more explicit binding would be better.

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 clearly states the tool returns profile IDs inside a folder plus a password-protected flag, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('profile ids inside a folder'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_profiles, get_profile, and list_folders.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and description but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so it falls short of clear context.

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