List adapters
list_adaptersBrowse the open adapter ecosystem, optionally by category.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No |
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and optional filter, without mentioning pagination, result limits, order, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand implications of calling the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it may be too terse for adequate understanding, but for conciseness it scores well.
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?
Given the simple tool (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It does not explain what the 'open adapter ecosystem' is, how browsing works, or what the output contains. An agent would lack context to use the tool correctly.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'category' parameter, and the description only says 'optionally by category' without explaining valid values, format, or semantics. No additional meaning is added beyond the parameter name and type. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 states 'Browse the open adapter ecosystem, optionally by category.' It clearly identifies the verb (browse) and resource (adapter ecosystem), and notes the optional category filter. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_capabilities or search, which could also browse listings.
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 alternatives such as search or list_capabilities. The description only says 'optionally by category' but does not specify what categories exist or when to use the filter. No exclusion criteria or context is given.
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
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'explain' and 'faq' both cover learning about CHP, and 'search' may overlap with glossary and FAQ lookups. Descriptions provide enough clarity to distinguish them.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming mixes verb-initial patterns (define, explain, get_capability) with noun-like names (faq) and a phrase (how_to_adopt). While all use lowercase and underscores, the verb usage is inconsistent.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is well-scoped for a protocol documentation server. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being overwhelming or sparse.
Completeness4/5
Covers key aspects: definitions, explanations, FAQs, capabilities, examples, adoption, adapters, and search. Minor gaps like a conformance checker exist but are not essential for the educational purpose.