Lists available and unavailable agent harnesses with their models, effort levels, reasons, and server limits so you can choose valid values for delegated coding tasks.
Lists valid agent values for run_thronglet: available harnesses with their models and effort levels, unavailable ones with the reason, and the server limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals that both available and unavailable harnesses are returned, that unavailability comes with a reason, and that server limits are included. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, though 'Lists' strongly implies a safe read.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose and the returned structure are packed into one clean clause.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return payload, covering available, unavailable, and limit categories. Minor gaps remain about exact format or size of the response, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or selection arguments are needed to obtain the full harness list.
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?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (harnesses), then enumerates exactly what is returned: available harnesses with models and effort levels, unavailable ones with reasons, and server limits. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_thronglets, since it is specifically about agent values consumed by run_thronglet.
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?
By framing the output as the 'valid agent values for run_thronglet,' it implies the tool should be called to discover acceptable inputs before invoking run_thronglet. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the usage context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.