Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
spoofzy

spoofzy

by spoofzy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Saved Spoofzy workflows

spoofzy_list_workflows
Read-onlyIdempotent

List saved cloud workflows with IDs, versions, input types, steps, and outputs to review reusable step stacks before running them.

Instructions

List saved Spoofzy Cloud workflows (reusable step stacks such as Caption → Spoof ×5): id, current version, input type, steps and outputs per run. Needs a Cloud key with 'Read workflows and history'. Read-only.

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": "spoofzy_list_workflows"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world behavior, so the description's main added value is the required credential scope ('Cloud key with Read workflows and history'), which is real operational context an agent cannot get from annotations. It also enumerates the returned fields, though 'Read-only' is redundant with readOnlyHint.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: purpose and payload come first, the auth requirement last. Every clause carries information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what is actually needed: what a workflow is, which fields come back per item, and the credential scope required to call it.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing filtering options the schema does not support.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('List saved Spoofzy Cloud workflows') and clarifies what a workflow is ('reusable step stacks such as Caption → Spoof ×5'), which implicitly separates it from run/original listing siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 implied: fetch saved workflow definitions rather than individual runs. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or routing to siblings such as spoofzy_get_run or spoofzy_list_runs, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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