Skip to main content
Glama

Santismm Knowledge — Harness Engineering, Agentic AI & Governance

by com.santismm

List first-party essays

list_articles
Read-onlyIdempotent

List every long-form essay published on articles.santismm.com, with language, dates, topics and citable canonical URLs. Use this to browse the essay catalogue; use search_articles when you have a topic rather than a slug.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localeNoRestrict by language. Articles are currently published in en, es and pt.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
resultsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the exhaustive 'every' scope, the specific site, and the returned metadata fields. Minor gaps such as pagination or ordering are not significant for this low-risk read tool.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the action, scope, and output fields; the second provides routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, output schema present, read-only annotations), the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It also distinguishes itself from the relevant sibling tool.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single optional `locale` parameter with an enum and a clear description ('Restrict by language'). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much; it introduces language as an output field but not the parameter semantics, which is acceptable.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('every long-form essay published on articles.santismm.com'), and the returned fields (language, dates, topics, canonical URLs). It clearly differentiates from search_articles and other 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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use this to browse the essay catalogue') and when to use an alternative ('use search_articles when you have a topic rather than a slug'). This gives an agent unambiguous routing guidance.

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

All Santismm Knowledge — Harness Engineering, Agentic AI & Governance toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by content type and the list_/get_ pairs are predictable. The main ambiguity is among search, search_all, and search_articles: search claims to cover the 'whole corpus' while search_all actually expands to essays, labs, claims, and the Homeric Atlas, so an agent could select the narrower search and miss content.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the same snake_case verb_noun pattern: calculate_*, get_*, list_*, and search_*. Even the three search variants are predictable from their suffixes, so there are no mixed naming conventions.

Tool Count2/5

30 tools is above the preferred MCP size and creates real selection burden for agents, even though the multi-surface knowledge scope explains the volume. The set is systematic rather than bloated, but 25+ tools is still too many for a typical server surface.

Completeness4/5

Each content surface has browse, fetch, and search coverage, and get_related plus get_overview provide cross-cutting navigation. The only meaningful gap is that the relationship between search and search_all is not fully disjoint, which can create a dead-end if the wrong search tool is chosen first.

Resources