mcp-agent-hub

list_agents

List registered agents, optionally including offline ones, and filter by role type (master/subagent) or status to identify available participants for task coordination.

Instructions

列出已登记 Agent。可按 role_type（master/subagent）或 status 过滤。

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_agents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`role_type`	No
`include_offline`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only enumeration, whether offline agents are hidden by default, whether results are paginated/ordered/limited, or what the 'status' values can be — all of which matter when there are zero structured hints.

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?

Two short sentences with the action stated first and the filtering options second. Nothing is redundant, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, but with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an undocumented include_offline parameter, the description is thinner than a 3-parameter listing tool warrants. It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing on default filtering behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it names role_type as a master/subagent filter and status as a filter. However, the third parameter include_offline is never mentioned, and no allowed values for status are given, leaving real gaps.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('列出已登记 Agent') plus the two filter dimensions, so the agent immediately knows what it does. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as team_status or whoami, which also surface agent information, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter listing — the agent can infer it should use role_type or status to narrow results. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to alternatives like team_status when the caller wants aggregate team state.

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