list_adaptersList registered language adapters available for repository audits, helping you see which ecosystems the read-only test architecture tool can inspect.
List registered language adapters available to audit repositories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adapters | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$id": "adapter-registry-v1.schema.json",
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "adapters": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "ecosystems": {
+ "items": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "minItems": 1,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "emittedArtifacts": {
+ "items": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "minItems": 1,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "languages": {
+ "items": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "minItems": 1,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "maturity": {
+ "enum": [
+ "supported",
+ "experimental",
+ "planned"
+ ]
+ },
+ "supportedProjectTypes": {
+ "items": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "supportedTestFrameworks": {
+ "items": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "ecosystems",
+ "languages",
+ "maturity",
+ "supportedTestFrameworks",
+ "supportedProjectTypes",
+ "emittedArtifacts"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "schemaVersion": {
+ "const": "adapter-registry/v1"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schemaVersion",
+ "adapters"
+ ],
+ "title": "Adapter Registry Artifact",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only modest context by clarifying that the adapters are language adapters registered for auditing repositories; it does not discuss auth needs, rate limits, or output behavior beyond what the output schema and annotations provide.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and resource immediately and stays appropriately sized for a zero-parameter listing tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is being listed and the audit-related context. A slightly fuller definition could have added usage routing against sibling tools, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and the empty schema is consistent with the described listing purpose.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('registered language adapters') and adds the scoping phrase 'available to audit repositories.' It clearly conveys what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby listing tools such as list_project_detection_rules.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'available to audit repositories' hints at an audit-related context, but it does not state prerequisites, when-not conditions, or which sibling tool to prefer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.