Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Senja MCP Server

Senja MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List configured accounts

list_accounts
Read-onlyIdempotent

List available Senja account profiles with labels, default status, and authentication method, excluding keys, token paths, provider identity, or network requests.

Instructions

Local profile labels/default/auth method only. No keys, token paths, provider identity 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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: output is limited to local profile labels/defaults/auth method and deliberately excludes keys, token paths, and provider identity, telling the agent the result is safe to surface.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is very short (two fragments) and wastes no words, but it is telegraphic and front-loads a qualifier rather than the core action. The terseness borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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, read-only listing tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential safety and scope facts. However, it never plainly states what the tool does or what the returned list contains beyond field-level exclusions, leaving the purpose inferable only from the title.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry. Baseline of 4 applies; nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 or resource — it only describes the scope of what is returned ("Local profile labels/default/auth method only"). The title supplies the actual purpose, so the agent can infer this lists local accounts, but the description itself is vague about the action.

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 and no named alternative among the numerous list_* siblings (list_customers, list_partners, list_domains, etc.). The agent must infer that this tool is for enumerating locally configured account profiles rather than any remote data.

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