List LLM provider entities in your AI gateway. Use query filters and set a limit to retrieve only the needed results.
List manage multiple llm providers entities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| query | No | Filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose safety, pagination, response format, or any side effects. For a listing tool this is minimal disclosure, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.
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, which is concise, but the structure is awkward ('List manage multiple...'). It is not front-loaded with the most critical information and could be clearer, but it is not verbose.
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 list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what entities are returned and the response structure. It mentions 'llm providers entities' but does not elaborate on what that includes or how results are presented, making it incomplete for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.
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 coverage is 100%: both 'limit' and 'query' have descriptions ('Max results' and 'Filter'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 'List manage multiple llm providers entities' has a clear verb 'List' and a resource 'llm providers entities', but the phrasing is awkward and the term 'entities' is vague. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like aigw_status, aigw_inspect, or aigw_compare, though the name implies a listing function. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. No mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name that it lists entities, but no explicit context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.