ZenML MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

zenml_list_resources

List ZenML resources of an allowlisted type using validated filters, with pagination and project scope support. Retrieve resource data or discover accepted filters for a given resource type.

Instructions

List one allowlisted ZenML resource type with validated filters.

Use ``zenml_describe_resources(resource_type, "list")`` to discover the
accepted filters. Page sizes are capped at 200. Project-scoped reads use
``project_id`` when supplied and otherwise report the active project used.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`size`	No
`filters`	No
`project_id`	No
`resource_type`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses concrete traits: page size cap of 200 and project_id fallback to the active project. It doesn't mention auth or error behavior, but for a list operation these are secondary.

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?

Four sentences, each adding distinct information; purpose is front-loaded, and no filler. The reference to describe is compact but actionable.

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 an output schema, return values need no explanation. The description covers the non-obvious runtime constraints (page cap, project fallback, filter discovery) and leaves only minor parameter details (page behavior, size null) unexplained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for size (cap 200), project_id (fallback behavior), and filters (via pointer to describe), but leaves resource_type values and page semantics undocumented. This is partial compensation, not full.

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?

States the operation ('List') and scope ('one allowlisted ZenML resource type') and mentions validated filters. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling get/create/update/delete tools, but the verb and resource scoping make the purpose clear.

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?

Explicitly routes filter discovery to zenml_describe_resources(resource_type, 'list'), giving the agent a clear precondition. It does not state exclusions for sibling tools, but the list-specific guidance is sufficient context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server