mioffice_list_tools
List the full MiOffice applications with pricing tier per tool. Optionally filter by category.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Category filter — use "all" for the complete catalog | all |
MiOffice — AI-Powered Workspace Studio
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed2 schema fields changed
- changed
Input schema / properties / category / descriptionPrevious value: -"Category filter"New value: +"Category filter — use \"all\" for the complete catalog" - changed
Input schema / properties / category / enumPrevious value: -[ - "pdf", - "image", - "ai", - "video", - "scanner", - "all" -]New value: +[ + "ai", + "video", + "audio", + "image", + "pdf", + "scanner", + "p2p", + "notes", + "all" +]
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the main behavior (listing with pricing) and filtering, but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only, output format, pagination, or authentication requirements. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but lacks deeper context.
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, focused sentence that delivers the core purpose and the optional filter. No wasted words or redundant information.
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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and the return content (applications with pricing tier). However, it doesn't mention edge cases like whether the list includes all tools or only active ones, nor does it describe the exact response structure, leaving slight room for ambiguity.
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?
The schema fully describes the single 'category' parameter, including enum values, default, and a descriptive comment. The tool description's mention of 'Optionally filter by category' is redundant, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('full MiOffice applications'), and the key output ('pricing tier per tool'). It also includes the optional filter behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mioffice_open_tool or mioffice_pricing_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to enumerate all MiOffice applications, optionally by category). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use mioffice_pricing_info for detailed pricing of a single tool.'
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
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as mio_ai_remove_background and mio_ai_remove_background_pro, mio_ai_video_subtitler and mio_video_auto_captions, and mio_ai_enhancer tools targeting similar media. Agents would struggle to pick the correct tool when several appear to do nearly the same thing.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are mixed: most tools use a mio_ prefix with category, but some use action-based names (mio_image_compress), others use format-pair names (mio_image_avif_to_jpg), and a few use a different prefix (mioffice_list_tools, mioffice_pricing_info). The lack of a uniform pattern makes the tool set harder to navigate.
Tool Count1/5
With 134 tools, the server is massively over-scoped. Even for a broad workspace suite, this count exceeds practical limits and creates significant selection overhead for agents. The number is more appropriate for a full product catalog than an MCP tool surface.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers a wide range of PDF, image, audio, video, scanner, and AI operations, so most common tasks are represented. However, there are notable gaps for a 'workspace studio,' such as no document creation or spreadsheet editing tools, and the redundancy between overlapping AI tools suggests the surface is not thoughtfully curated.