Skip to main content
Glama
verifyax

VerifyAX MCP

Official
by verifyax
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List scenarios

list_scenarios
Read-only

Retrieve test scenarios in your VerifyAX workspace, optionally filtered by type (info_exchange or interview) and status. Returns each scenario's UUID, name, type, and status.

Instructions

Lists the test scenarios in your VerifyAX workspace, optionally filtered by type (info_exchange or interview) and status. Returns each scenario’s uuid, name, type, and status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
statusNoFilter by scenario status. Known values: INIT, PROCESSING, SUCCESS, FAILED, CANCELLED (open enum — the API may add statuses, which are forwarded rather than rejected).
scenario_typeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.5
  2. Removedv1.0.1
  3. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description of read-only nature is redundant. Adds return fields but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or sorting. Adequate but minimal added value.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words. Highly concise.

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?

Given no output schema, description covers return values (uuid, name, type, status). For a simple list tool, it provides essential context. Missing pagination behavior, but overall complete for basic usage.

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?

Description adds meaning for scenario_type and status filters beyond schema (only status has description). However, limit and offset are not explained; schema coverage is 25%, so description partially compensates but misses pagination details.

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?

Description clearly states it lists test scenarios in a workspace with optional filters and specifies returned fields (uuid, name, type, status). Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_recent_runs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains optional filtering by type and status, providing clear context. No explicit when-not-to-use or contrast with siblings, but the description is sufficient for correct use.

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