Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
writ-mcp

writ-mcp

Official
by withwrit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

writ_verbs

Lists a tenant's verb vocabulary, including custom verbs, to show which actions are available for policy checks.

Instructions

List the tenant's verb vocabulary, including custom verbs.

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": "writ_verbs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and "List" does imply a non-mutating read. It also reveals that custom (tenant-defined) verbs appear in the result, which is meaningful behavior. However, it says nothing about permissions, result size, or whether the listing is exhaustive versus paginated.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. Every word contributes: the tenant scope and the custom-verb inclusion are both load-bearing.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns at a conceptual level, so return-value detail need not be repeated. The only shortfall is the absence of any note on result scope or volume.

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 to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

The description pairs the specific verb "List" with a specific resource, "the tenant's verb vocabulary," and adds scope detail ("including custom verbs"). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as writ_principals or writ_policy, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery call for valid verb names, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no alternative tool to prefer in any situation.

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