Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fal.ai MCP Server

fal.ai MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List configured private accounts

list_accounts
Read-onlyIdempotent

List locally configured fal.ai account profiles and default authentication methods without exposing keys, tokens, or making network requests.

Instructions

Local labels/default/auth method only. No keys, token paths, real provider identities or network request.

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_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world traits. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it guarantees no secrets are exposed (no keys, token paths, or real provider identities) and that no network request occurs, which tells the agent the result is locally sanitized data.

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 with no filler, and the field-scope constraint is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion list. It is fragmentary and slightly cryptic to parse, but every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should hint at the return shape. It names the field categories returned (label, default flag, auth method) and what is excluded, but never describes the structure or count of results, leaving the response format to inference.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics need explaining.

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 never states a verb+resource; it only enumerates the field scope ('Local labels/default/auth method only') and exclusions. The title carries the actual purpose, so an agent must fall back on structured metadata rather than the description to know this lists configured accounts.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative sibling. The description gives no indication of when this tool should be selected over the many other list_* tools.

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