Lists all MCP servers configured in Cherry Studio, providing a quick overview of available integrations.
List all MCP servers configured in Cherry Studio
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": "getMcpServers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or what the output contains. It is not misleading, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'List' and the target resource. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly efficient and appropriately structured.
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 simple zero-parameter listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete. There is no output schema, so the description could potentially mention what fields are returned per server, but given the simplicity and clarity of the purpose, this is not a major gap. The tool's domain is clearly established.
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 the description does not need to explain any. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4. The description provides no parameter information, which 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all MCP servers configured in Cherry Studio'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on knowledge bases. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 clearly implies this tool is for listing MCP servers, and sibling tools are entirely different resources (knowledge bases), so there is no conflict. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions, though none seem necessary here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.