Skip to main content
Glama

VarynForge

by com.varynforge

List destinations

list_destinations
Read-only

List the project's destinations — where the operator publishes (website, youtube_channel, tiktok, instagram, x, linkedin, local_business). Destination type ids are the format labels lint_draft stores drafts under. Each row carries its capabilities so you never cross-reference other tools: briefChannel is the brief/lint channel the type maps onto (null for open slots), verifiable says lint_draft can grade drafts for it, publishable says it is live and its published URLs can be recorded, and publishVia names the recording tool (mark_article_published for article-channel destinations, register_derived_asset for social/video; null while planned). An empty list means the operator has not configured destinations — add one with add_destination, or fall back to the brief channel name as the lint_draft format label.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextYesOne sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.
projectIdYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "projectId"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "context"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond by detailing what each row contains (briefChannel, verifiable, publishable, publishVia), what each field means, and the empty-list behavior. These behavioral traits are not available anywhere else and exceed the annotation coverage.

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?

The description is dense yet front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact breakdown of row fields and edge-case behavior. Every sentence carries operational meaning; there is no filler or repetition of schema data.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return row semantics, the meaning of each capability, and the empty-response fallback. An agent has everything needed to call the tool and interpret its result without further research.

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 50%: context has a full description, but projectId has only format/pattern. The description implicitly clarifies projectId by saying 'the project's destinations,' but it adds no direct explanation of how the context parameter should be used or whether it affects results. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the project's destinations' and enumerates the concrete destination types (website, youtube_channel, tiktok, etc.). It also names related sibling tools like add_destination and lint_draft, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit guidance for the empty-list case: use add_destination or fall back to the brief channel name as the lint_draft format label. It also explains that the row capabilities are self-contained, so the agent knows it does not need to cross-reference other tools for this data.

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

All VarynForge 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions carefully cross-reference close alternatives (e.g., add_article_suggestion vs create_article_suggestion_with_input vs accept_idea). A few brief/read variants like get_article_brief, get_write_handoff, and download_brief_markdown could still be confused despite helpful explanations, so the set is not perfectly unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern throughout: get_*, list_*, create_*, update_*, set_*, add_*, delete_*, start_*, expand_*, etc. Even the less common names like lint_draft and remap_asset are still clear verb_noun constructions.

Tool Count1/5

At 57 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold for a single MCP server. Even for a broad content workflow, the surface is overwhelming and would benefit from consolidation or splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full content lifecycle: project setup, research runs, opportunity clustering, suggestion creation, brief generation, drafting, linting, publishing, reporting, and account management. Minor gaps exist—destinations and projects cannot be deleted via MCP, and there is no direct update for article suggestion metadata—but these are workable via the web UI or existing tools.

Resources