Identify all detected AI agents and their availability status to select the right agent for task delegation.
List all detected agents and their availability status.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_agents"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly conveys a read-only list operation, the scope ('all detected agents'), and the result ('availability status'). While it doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, the verb 'list' implies a safe query, and the simplicity of the tool limits the need for additional behavioral disclaimers.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: 'all detected' sets the scope, 'agents' defines the resource, and 'availability status' specifies the output.
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 parameter-free listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states the input (none), the operation (list all), and the output (agents with availability status). No additional context is necessary for correct invocation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The description correctly omits parameter details because there are none to document.
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 clear resource ('detected agents') and specifies the output content ('availability status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'agent_health' (health status) and 'ask_all' (querying) by focusing on listing and availability.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where another tool like 'agent_health' or 'ask_all' would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.