List available AI providers and models with status indicators, and filter by provider to find the right model for your task.
List all available AI providers and their models, with status indicators. Optionally filter by a specific provider.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Filter to a specific provider ID (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the scope (all providers/models) and mentions status indicators, which implies a read-only inventory operation. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe how statuses are determined, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, object, output feature, and filter option without wasted words. Every phrase adds useful information.
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 one-optional-param listing tool, this is nearly complete: the agent knows the action, scope, and filter. The only minor gap is that status indicator semantics and provider ID values are not expanded, but no output schema exists to fill that in.
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 100%: the provider parameter has a clear description and is optional. The description reinforces this by restating the optional filter, but adds no new format or value information 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?
The description opens with the specific action 'List' and names the resource: all available AI providers and their models, plus status indicators. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like nexus_switch_model and nexus_configure, which perform different actions.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives; 'Optionally filter by a specific provider' is parameter usage, not tool selection guidance. An agent cannot tell from the description when listing models is preferred over switch_model or configure.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.