Skip to main content
Glama
CronusL-1141

AI Team OS

by CronusL-1141
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

agent_template_list

List every Agent template CC can actually resolve.

Instructions

List every Agent template CC can actually resolve.

Scans all three template sources with CC's own precedence — project-level <project>/.claude/agents/ > user-level agents/ in the session's Claude Code config folder > the shipped plugin/agents/ — and de-duplicates by frontmatter name (the identity CC resolves), so the count matches what subagent_type will really accept. Each entry carries a source field.

Default response is a COMPACT projection (view="compact" + hint - trimmed, NOT missing fields): the full listing measured 32,480 chars, half of it because grouped repeats every row of templates verbatim. Compact keeps one projected row per template and reduces grouped to a name index.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNo"compact" (default, trimmed rows) / "all" (full listing)compact

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.11.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "compact",
+  "description": "\"compact\" (default, trimmed rows) / \"all\" (full listing)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the three-source precedence ordering, de-duplication by frontmatter `name`, the presence of a `source` field per entry, and that the default response is trimmed rather than lossy. It omits read-only/safety framing and any cost or failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the single most important fact (what the list represents), then background on precedence, then the compact-vs-full rationale in order of diminishing need. The character-count detail is verbose but earns its place by justifying the default.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and the description compensates for the non-obvious resolution/dedup logic that the schema cannot express. What's missing is minor: nothing about whether entries can be filtered, or behavior when a source directory is absent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by clarifying that compact rows are "trimmed, NOT missing fields" and by quantifying why (full listing was 32,480 chars, half from `grouped` duplication). One blemish: it refers to `view="compact"` while the actual parameter is named `fields`, a naming mismatch that could momentarily confuse.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("List every Agent template CC can actually resolve") and, crucially, defines the scope as resolution semantics rather than raw file listing. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling agent_template_recommend, so the reader must infer that this is the exhaustive catalogue while the sibling is the suggestion engine.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: "the count matches what `subagent_type` will really accept" tells an agent this is the canonical enumeration, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction and no routing to agent_template_recommend. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools