credential_listList saved credentials (summary) or detail on one. Pass name for detail view. Pass show_available: true to include the full credential catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Credential name for detail view. Omit to list all saved. | |
| context | No | "personal" or "team:<id>". Defaults to personal. | |
| show_available | No | Include the full catalogue of available BYOK options. Default false. |
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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful mode information (summary vs detail, catalog inclusion) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or permission requirements. This is adequate given the strong 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?
The description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('List saved credentials') then immediately provides the variations. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the title.
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?
For a simple read-only listing tool with three optional parameters, all covered by the schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains both listing modes and the catalog flag. Minor gaps remain around the exact return shape (summary vs detail) and the meaning of 'full credential catalog', but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.
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%, so every parameter (name, context, show_available) is already documented clearly in the input schema. The description reinforces the name and show_available behaviors but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'List saved credentials (summary) or detail on one.' It clearly distinguishes credential_list from sibling tools like credential_save, credential_delete, and credential_default by focusing on the listing behavior. The summary/detail distinction adds precision beyond the title.
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 gives clear parameter-level guidance ('Pass name for detail view', 'Pass show_available: true') but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context is implied by the word 'list', but there is no explicit exclusion of credential_save/delete/default or mention of when not to use this tool.
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.
Tools are grouped by clear resource prefixes (account_, brain_, connector_, credential_, file_, job_, key_), and most actions have distinct purposes. A few boundaries overlap—brain_admin's lint action duplicates brain_lint, and account_preferences/setup/switch could momentarily confuse—but the descriptions resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant pattern is resource_verb for actions (file_read, job_cancel, key_create) and resource_noun for state views (credits_balance, brain_settings, account_preferences), which is readable. However, exceptions like discover, use_tool, top_up_credits, and feedback_request_tool break the pattern, and the set is not consistently verb_noun.
47 tools is well beyond the comfortable range; even though prefixes organize them, the agent faces a large selection surface with many narrowly scoped tools. A more consolidated set with action-based subcommands would be easier to navigate.
Core workflows are covered end-to-end: account setup and billing, connector and credential management, file CRUD, job polling, key lifecycle, brain knowledge management, and catalogue discovery/execution. Gaps are minor—outfit/persona/product/scene are list-only, connectors lack an update operation, and there is no explicit single-page brain get—but agents can generally work around them.