list_modules
List the organization's reusable modules (pass revisions=true to include revision history).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization_uuid | Yes |
Air Pipe
by io.airpipe
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description adds minimal transparency: it mentions revision history via a parameter that doesn't exist, and does not disclose if the operation is read-only or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but includes inaccurate information (revisions parameter), which detracts from its clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, yet the description omits any details about return values, pagination, or data structure, leaving the tool's complete behavior underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the sole parameter organization_uuid while introducing a non-existent parameter, making it actively misleading.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it lists organization modules, but it references a 'revisions' parameter not present in the input schema, causing confusion about the tool's actual behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_configs or list_organizations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource (config or module) and action (create, read, update, delete, deploy, etc.), with clear descriptions that avoid overlap. No two tools appear to perform the same function.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_config, list_modules), with occasional specificity like deploy_config_revision. No mixing of conventions or unexpected naming.
Tool Count4/5
At 19 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a configuration management server covering CRUD, deployment, revision history, validation, and planning. Each tool earns its place.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of configurations and modules (create, read, update, delete, deploy, undeploy, toggle, validate, plan, edit). Minor gaps like bulk operations or search are absent but not critical for the domain.