E3D Pilot

e3d_list_experts

Read-onlyIdempotent

FREE: lists the built-in experts, reusable lenses such as skeptic, customer and architect, and the presets that group them. Nothing is spent and nothing is written. Optionally filter by task or search words. This only describes them: running a debate with experts is not available through this connector yet.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "e3d_list_experts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	No	Only experts that support this kind of task.
`query`	No	Search words matched against an expert's name, description, tags and lens summary.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notice`	Yes
`experts`	No	name, description, lens (a one-line summary), tags, tasks, version, license, content_hash.
`presets`	No	name, description, min_seats, experts (names, in priority order).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by adding the cost dimension ("FREE... Nothing is spent") — meaningful in a toolset that also contains e3d_quote and e3d_usage — and by disclosing the capability gap that expert execution is unavailable here.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the cost guarantee, which is the most decision-relevant fact. The only mild waste is "Nothing is spent and nothing is written" partly restating "FREE", but that redundancy reinforces the read-only guarantee cheaply.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and both parameters plus all annotations are documented. The scope, cost and capability limitation are all covered; the only omission is explicit guidance on which sibling to call when the agent actually wants to run or inspect an expert.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the enum for `task` and the maxLength and matching behavior for `query`, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates "optionally filter by `task` or search words" without adding format or matching nuance, which is the expected baseline when the schema is this complete.

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 uses a concrete verb ("lists") on a concrete resource (built-in experts, lenses, presets) and gives examples ("skeptic, customer and architect") that make the domain tangible. It also draws a clear boundary against the debate-running capability, so an agent can separate it from e3d_debate and e3d_get_expert without opening a schema.

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?

It states this is a discovery/listing call and explicitly says running a debate with experts is not available through this connector, which prevents a major misuse. It also frames filtering as optional. What it does not do is point to e3d_get_expert for retrieving a single expert's full detail, so the sibling routing is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All E3D Pilot tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?