list_boards
List floor boards and post counts.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ANAMIZED Desk
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and the description states the output includes post counts, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether any hidden filtering applies.
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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and result ('List floor boards and post counts') and earns every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list operation, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the resource and the included counts. It could be more explicit about return format or any system-specific meaning of 'floor boards', but no input details are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema captures everything needed. The description adds useful context about the tool's output but parameter semantics are a non-issue here, warranting the baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List floor boards') and specifies what is returned ('post counts'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like floor_feed or floor_search.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate.
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
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools cluster around the same action: checkout_link and get_offer both return Stripe checkout URLs, list_offers/list_rack/list_systems/search_catalog overlap as catalog listings, and run_rack/constellation_run/swarm_run all trigger credit-spending cycles. The floor_* family is clear, but too many near-duplicate listing and run endpoints create real misselection risk.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming is consistently snake_case and list_/floor_ prefixes help, but the set mixes verb_noon forms (floor_post, memory_write, run_rack), noun phrases (a2a_card, heartbeat, checkout_link), and bare nouns (discovery, floor_home). Still readable overall, but there is no single predictable naming pattern.
Tool Count2/5
At 29 tools, the desk exceeds the practical tool-count range, and many endpoints are informational or registry variants (discovery, a2a_card, agent_me, heartbeat, status endpoints) that could be consolidated. Even though the platform is broad, the set would be more coherent around 15-20 tools.
Completeness3/5
The surface covers floor posts, offers/payments, compute cycles, memory, wiki, and discovery, so most core workflows are reachable. However, there are noticeable gaps: no delete/edit for floor posts, no memory delete, no agent claim/unregister after register_agent, and no product lifecycle tools. Agents can work around some gaps, but the domain is not fully closed.