list_presentationsList the authenticated user's presentations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of presentations to return. | |
| visibility | No | Return only presentations with this visibility. Omit to return every one of them. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| presentations | Yes | Newest first. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum number of presentations to return."Input schema / properties / visibility / descriptionAdded value: +"Return only presentations with this visibility. Omit to return every one of them."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the auth scoping that only the user's presentations are returned, which is useful. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but with annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the verb, the resource, and the scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple list operation with two optional parameters already fully described in the schema, and an output schema is present. Annotations cover safety, and the description states the scope. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('presentations'), and a scope ('authenticated user's'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling get/create/update/publish operations, which target individual presentations or other actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states a clear context: retrieving the authenticated user's presentations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the list operation is obviously distinct from the sibling tools, so an agent can infer when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are grouped into clear resource families (artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, channels) and descriptions explicitly redirect between create_artifact and create_presentation. The main potential confusion is create_presentation vs publish_narrated_presentation, since both produce presentations but differ in narration source; the descriptions do clarify this.
All tools use snake_case verb_noun naming with consistent families like get_artifact, get_artifact_thread, and get_presentation_spec. publish_narrated_presentation is longer but still follows the verb_noun pattern, and there are no mixed casing styles or erratic naming conventions.
19 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the count is justified by four clear subdomains: artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, and channels. No tools are redundant, though the set is large enough to feel slightly heavy.
Artifacts have full CRUD plus sharing, and threads have create/read/list/reply/resolve. Presentations cover authoring spec, creation/publishing, status, analytics, and reading context, but there is no delete or explicit update endpoint for presentations and no exposed way to fetch mentionables; these are workable gaps rather than fatal ones.