List federated identity providers configured on the IdP to audit active SSO sources.
[READ] Federated identity providers / sources configured on the IdP.
Args: target: IdP target name from config; omit for the default.
Returns {"identityProviders": [...], "returned": N, "truncated": false} — the IdP returns the complete set, so this listing is never clipped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| max_results | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.5Input schema / properties / max_resultsAdded value: +{
+ "default": 200,
+ "title": "Max Results",
+ "type": "integer"
+}v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares the read-only nature ('[READ]'), specifies the exact return shape, and states that the listing is never truncated. It doesn't cover authentication requirements or rate limits, but for a simple read-only listing it adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema.
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 compact and well-structured: a '[READ]' tag, an Args block, and a Returns block convey the needed information in only three lines with no wasted words.
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?
The description covers the core purpose, one parameter, and the return contract (including the non-truncation guarantee), which is sufficient for basic use. However, the undocumented 'max_results' parameter and absence of any note on permissions or error behavior leave minor gaps; because no output schema or annotations exist, the description should have explicitly addressed max_results.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains 'target' well (including omit-for-default semantics), but completely omits 'max_results'. An agent cannot tell whether max_results affects output or is ignored; the return-shape statement that results are never clipped is an indirect hint, but the parameter itself is left 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?
The description states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('federated identity providers / sources configured on the IdP'), making it clearly distinct from sibling list tools like list_clients, list_users, and list_groups. The '[READ]' tag reinforces that this is a read-only operation.
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 clear context: what the tool lists and how to use the 'target' parameter (omit for the default). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is self-evident enough for an agent to select this tool when listing IdP providers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.