Your agents with their budgets and this month's spend. Free. Same as GET /v1/agents.
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": "list_agents"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful traits: the operation is free (no credit consumption) and it mirrors GET /v1/agents, which implies a read-only, non-destructive call. It says nothing about pagination, result size caps, or whether spend figures are live versus cached.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with what is returned, then the cost signal, then the API equivalence. No filler, and each clause carries information an agent could act on.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary. Yet for a list endpoint with zero annotations and an undocumented api_key parameter, the description leaves open whether results are paginated, whether inactive agents appear, and what account the list is scoped to — gaps that matter for correct invocation.
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?
There is one optional parameter (api_key) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. Its meaning is conventional enough that an agent will not misfire, but the description adds nothing beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (list your agents) and adds what each entry contains: budgets and this month's spend. The plural 'agents' plus the 'list_' prefix distinguishes it from get_agent, create_agent and update_agent, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
'Your agents' implies it returns agents scoped to the calling account, and 'Free' signals no credit cost, which is a genuine usage signal. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_agent for a single agent, or any prerequisite/auth guidance.
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.