Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sape-mcp

sape-mcp

by sshra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_urls

Fetch every URL in a specified project along with its ID and statistics so you can review and manage the project's link inventory.

Instructions

Список URL-ов проекта с их ID и статистикой.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_urls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and gives almost nothing: "list" implies a read, but scope (all URLs vs. paginated), ordering, permission requirements, and behavior for an invalid project_id are unstated. It only reveals that each item carries an ID and statistics.

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 short sentence that front-loads the resource and states the returned fields, with no filler. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and a single-parameter list tool is inherently simple. Still, with zero annotations and no usage context, an agent lacks guidance on when this is the right call versus link-oriented siblings.

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 0%, so only the title "Project Id" identifies the single required parameter; the description implies the project scoping but adds no format, range, or source guidance (e.g., where to obtain the ID). For one self-evident parameter this is minimally adequate rather than a real gap.

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?

"Список URL-ов проекта с их ID и статистикой" names a specific verb (list) and resource (project URLs) and even previews the payload (IDs plus statistics), so the agent knows what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as get_url_links or get_project_links, which also deal with URLs.

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 at all: no prerequisites, no indication of which sibling to pick when the agent needs links versus URLs, and no exclusion conditions. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for URL inventory within a project.

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