list_projectsList all projects in the workspace. Call this first - most other tools need a project_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (default 25) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous call |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Result rows | |
| pagination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and safe behavior. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the tool's role as a prerequisite (call this first), which is valuable beyond the annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides essential usage guidance. Every sentence is justified.
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?
The tool is simple with two optional pagination params and has an output schema. The description fully covers the context needed: listing projects and the dependency for other tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (limit and cursor). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'List all projects in the workspace,' specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting it should be called first because other tools need a project_id, differentiating it from sibling list tools.
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 explicitly advises 'Call this first - most other tools need a project_id,' providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose with no overlapping functionality. Tools like create_monitor and update_monitor are clearly differentiated by action, and pause_monitor/resume_monitor are opposites. Lists are scoped to different resource types.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_monitor, list_domains, pause_monitor) with no mixing of conventions, making the set predictable for an agent.
13 tools is well-scoped for an uptime monitoring server, covering essential CRUD-like operations, lifecycle management, and list queries without excess.
The tool set covers core monitoring workflows (create, read, update, pause/resume monitors; list incidents, domains, etc.) but lacks a delete monitor tool, which is a minor gap.