provider_inventoryList registered providers with configuration status and credential source, omitting credential values. Get a clear view of provider setup without network calls.
Inventory every registered provider with configuration status and credential source, never credential values. No network calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds critical context: 'never credential values' (privacy guarantee) and 'No network calls' (performance and side-effect guarantee). These go beyond annotations and are directly useful for agent decision-making.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the exclusions and behavioral notes are concise. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description fully covers purpose, scope, exclusions, and behavioral traits. An agent knows exactly what to expect and how to invoke it correctly. Nothing is missing.
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 schema coverage is 100% and there's nothing to document. The description correctly doesn't mention parameters. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary noise, so this 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 verb 'inventory' and resource 'every registered provider', specifying what it includes (configuration status and credential source) and excludes (credential values). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_models and discover_models, which deal with models, not providers. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 makes it clear that this tool is for provider inventory, so an agent would naturally choose it when needing that. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. There's no explicit routing to siblings, but the context is sufficient for correct selection in most cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.