List available research providers. Use verbose=true for ownership, endpoints and reviewed tools. Availability is configured, not a live uptime guarantee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | ||
| verbose | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by warning that 'availability is configured, not a live uptime guarantee,' which prevents an agent from misreading the output as health status.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the flag hint and the availability caveat. No 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 simple read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what verbose adds and the meaning of the availability field. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented api_key parameter.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains verbose well (ownership, endpoints, reviewed tools) but says nothing about api_key, leaving one of two parameters completely undocumented.
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 available research providers.' Clear at a glance, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_provider_tools, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.
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?
Gives guidance on the verbose flag but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like list_provider_tools or call_research_tool. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.