Skip to main content
Glama

List Agents

list_agents
Read-only

List a workspace's agent instances with their live status — which agents exist, how many copies of each are running, and which copies are stale, gone or stopped. One row per instance, straight from the heartbeat store.

This is the same read the Rius console's Agents page makes, with the server's own status words: running, ready, stale, gone, stopped. The status is computed on the server from the last heartbeat; do not re-derive it from last_seen_at. open_trace_count is the true number of open traces and the running/ready signal; first_seen_at and stopped_at appear when the core serves them, and a blank first_seen_at means the start is unknown, not that it started now.

Every row here is a live instance; a trace-only agent (one that sends traces but no heartbeat) does not appear. If an agent you expect is missing, the reply says why that happens.

workspace: optional workspace id, name, or org-name/workspace-name when the same name occurs in two of your orgs (defaults to your default; use list_workspaces to discover them). agent: optional exact agent name, to list only that agent's instances. The server has no filter for it, so this narrows the reply here and names the agents that do have instances when nothing matches.

Example:

Which of my agents are running right now?

{ "name": "list_agents", "arguments": {} }

Are any copies of planner lost?

{ "name": "list_agents", "arguments": { "agent": "planner" } }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNo
workspaceNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses real behavioral traits: status is computed server-side and must not be re-derived from last_seen_at, the meaning of open_trace_count and blank first_seen_at, and the important edge case that trace-only agents never appear with an explanation for missing agents. This is rich context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then field semantics, then parameter guidance, then examples. It is on the longer side, but nearly every sentence adds distinct value; only the example block could be considered marginally redundant for a sophisticated agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, yet it goes further and documents key fields and their edge cases. Combined with complete parameter guidance and documented missing-agent behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: workspace is explained as an id, name, or org-name/workspace-name disambiguator with default behavior, and agent is explained as an exact-name narrowing filter with the caveat that the server has no native filter and that non-matching replies name agents that do have instances.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List a workspace's agent instances with their live status.' It further differentiates from siblings by noting that trace-only agents do not appear, distinguishing it from trace-oriented tools like list_agent_traces and agent_traces_summary.

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 gives clear context ('the same read the Rius console's Agents page makes') and two worked examples of the questions it answers, plus a pointer to list_workspaces for discovering workspace names. It never explicitly names an alternative tool to use instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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.

Resources