DZ23 Subagents Universal MCP

List routing targets

list_models

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover configured AI models eligible for routing, showing tier and adapter capabilities. Works offline with no network calls.

Instructions

List configured, policy-eligible routing targets with tier and adapter capabilities. No network calls.

Tool call template

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_models"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0Sep 15, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedv2.2.4Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds genuine behavioral context by stating that no network calls are made and that results are limited to configured, policy-eligible targets, which is beyond what annotations or the empty schema provide.

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?

A single sentence contains the core purpose, the scope, the output content, and the key side-effect characteristic ('No network calls'). Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only list operation with strong annotations and no output schema, the description captures enough: what is listed (routing targets), filter state (configured/policy-eligible), and returned capability info. It could additionally mention response shape or empty-list behavior, but the invocation surface is minimal and clear.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Baseline 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the agent to misinterpret when invoking.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description uses a specific verb ('List') with a well-defined resource: 'configured, policy-eligible routing targets', and specifies the returned detail ('tier and adapter capabilities'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like provider_inventory and discover_models, which imply broader or network-dependent exploration.

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?

The phrase 'No network calls' and the modifier 'configured, policy-eligible' imply a local, low-cost read path, giving an agent context for when to call it. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when NOT to use it, so the usage guidance is left to inference.

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