List available connectors by type, host, capability, or tenant. Filter the read-only connector catalog to find matching integration endpoints for your tenant.
连接器发现（G5b 目录面）：按类型（db/rest/saas）/ 主机 / 能力标签过滤，租户隔离（只返回请求租户条目）。清单只含连接器——与 MCP 工具清单（TOOLS）分列，绝不混列。只读。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | 来源过滤（主机名 / 本地路径前缀） | |
| kind | No | 类型过滤 | |
| tenant | No | 租户隔离键（缺省 default） | |
| capability | No | 能力标签过滤 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral traits: the operation is read-only ('只读'), responses are tenant-isolated ('只返回请求租户条目'), and the result contains only connector entries, never mixed with MCP tool listings. It does not cover error cases or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.
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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose and filters. The parenthetical 'G5b 目录面' is an obscure project reference that adds little for an AI agent, but the rest is efficient and free of redundancy.
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 filtered-list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, filters, tenant behavior, read-only nature, and output content scope. It does not describe the return shape or pagination, but given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of annotations, it is reasonably complete.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter parameters (type, host, capability) and tenant isolation, but it does not add material meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions. No extra parameter semantics are provided.
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 verb 'discovery' and the resource 'connectors', and specifies the filtering dimensions (type, host, capability) and tenant isolation. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the MCP tool list ('与 MCP 工具清单（TOOLS）分列，绝不混列'), making its purpose unambiguous against siblings like list_capabilities or list_agents.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to discover connectors filtered by type/host/capability, with tenant isolation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the when-not-to-use part to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.