List all registered AI agents with their capabilities, inbox IDs, and status. Like reading input labels on a video matrix — discover which agents are available and what they can do before dispatching work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it lists 'all' agents and includes specific fields (capabilities, inbox IDs, status), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some value but not extensive contextual detail.
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?
The description is only two sentences. The first sentence states the action and output; the second provides a memorable metaphor and usage context. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundant filler.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (capabilities, inbox IDs, status) and its intended use (discovering agents before dispatching). With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the combined metadata is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description reinforces the lack of filters by saying 'all registered agents,' which aligns with the schema. Since 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4 and there is nothing else to document, this score is appropriate.
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?
The description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'List all registered AI agents' and specifies the output fields ('capabilities, inbox IDs, and status'), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like tascan_list_tasks or tascan_list_workers.
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?
The description provides context for when to use the tool: 'before dispatching work' (supported by the second sentence). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name alternate tools, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is clear enough.
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.
Most tools map to a distinct resource+action pair, and the descriptions clearly separate entities like tasks, subtasks, workers, invoices, zones, assets, and reports. A few close pairs (get_report vs generate_report, dispatch_instruction vs dispatch_to_agent, analyze_issue vs auto_resolve) require careful reading, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate them.
The vast majority follow a tascan_verb_noun pattern with consistent create/get/list/update/delete verbs. Minor deviations like condition_history, server_info, zone_compliance, and one-word find slightly break the otherwise predictable pattern.
At 69 tools, this is far beyond what an agent can efficiently consider, and it bundles several distinct domains into one MCP surface. Even if each tool is individually useful, the combined set is an extreme mismatch for a coherent tool interface.
The surface covers nearly the full lifecycle for projects, events, tasks, subtasks, workers, reports, invoices, zones, assets, issues, and communications. Minor gaps exist (no explicit asset updates/decommissioning, no cancel_invite, no delete_zone), but the main workflows have no dead ends.
