opencode-mcp

opencode_provider_models

Read-onlyIdempotent

List available models for a specific provider by providing its provider ID. Check provider IDs with the provider list tool to get started.

Instructions

List available models for a specific provider. Call opencode_provider_list first to see provider IDs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max models to show (default 30). Use 0 for all.
`directory`	No	Absolute path to the project directory. When provided, the request targets that project. If omitted, the OpenCode server uses its own working directory.
`providerId`	Yes	Provider ID (e.g. 'anthropic', 'openrouter', 'google')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`text`	Yes
`isError`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful prerequisite dependency on opencode_provider_list, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as default limits or pagination, which are handled by the schema and output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite instruction is provided immediately after, making the description efficient and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list operation, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, names the required dependency, and the schema plus output schema cover parameters and return structure. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond implying providerId is central, which the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('available models'), and scope ('for a specific provider'). It also names the prerequisite sibling (opencode_provider_list), making it easy to distinguish from other provider-related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context by instructing the agent to call opencode_provider_list first to obtain provider IDs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the prerequisite guidance is actionable and contextually sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server