Lists locally available harnesses, authorized models, tier bindings, and quota state, optionally refreshing model discovery, so you can choose a harness and track capacity.
List locally available harnesses, discovered authorised models, tier bindings and quota state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh_models | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals that results are local, yet the presence of a refresh_models flag implies an outbound discovery/authorisation call whose cost, permissions, or side effects are never disclosed. Nothing is said about whether the quota/tier data is cached or live.
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 with no filler, and the resource is stated first. It is arguably over-dense in that four distinct data categories are crammed into one clause, but no sentence is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be restated, and the description correctly avoids it. What is missing is the refresh_models behavior and any routing hint against the many overlapping siblings — meaningful but bounded gaps.
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 lone boolean refresh_models has no documented meaning anywhere. The description mentions "discovered authorised models" but never connects discovery to the flag, leaving the agent unable to judge when to set it or what changes if it does.
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 uses a specific verb ("List") with a named resource ("harnesses") and enumerates the payload contents: discovered authorised models, tier bindings, and quota state. An agent knows what comes back. It stops short of differentiating from siblings such as discover_harness_models or get_quota_status, which overlap on the listed contents.
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?
"Locally available" implies a cheap offline inventory versus the discovery-oriented sibling, but this is inference rather than stated guidance. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. discover_harness_models, get_quota_status), so an agent has to guess which of the overlapping tools to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.