Retrieve agents from a project you belong to by supplying its project ID. Enables AI assistants to inspect active agents on the Invariance observability platform.
List agents inside one of the caller's projects. Requires a user-session JWT bearer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID. The caller must be a member. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a critical behavioral detail—'Requires a user-session JWT bearer'—which is not captured in annotations and is essential for successful invocation. This goes beyond the structured fields and adds real value.
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action ('List agents'). It includes the scope and the auth requirement without any filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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 simple listing tool with one parameter, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the scope, auth, and the fact it lists agents. It does not explicitly mention the return format (a list of agents) but that is implied by the verb. Given no output schema and the simplicity, the description is adequate, though it could mention any default behavior or lack of filtering.
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 input schema covers project_id with a description ('Project ID. The caller must be a member.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the project scope but does not add new syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('List agents') and the scope ('inside one of the caller's projects'), which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from sibling agent tools (invariance_agent_me, invariance_agent_get, invariance_agent_create) by indicating this is a listing operation, not a single-item or mutation 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 implies the tool is for enumerating agents within a project but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like invariance_agent_get or invariance_agent_me. There is no guidance on exclusions (e.g., 'for a single agent, use invariance_agent_get'). The context is clear for listing, but no explicit routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.