bridge_agentsList registered agents in the Claude-Codex MCP bridge with unread counts, last activity, ping binding, and recent ping health; optionally include retired agents.
List registered agents with unread counts, last activity, ping binding and recent ping health. Retired agents are hidden unless requested.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeRetired | No | Include retired agents. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / properties / includeRetiredAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Include retired agents.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default filtering behavior (retired agents hidden unless requested) and the fields returned, but omits permissions, pagination, ordering, or explicit confirmation that this is a read-only list operation.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core listing behavior and then the default filter. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields and explaining the default filter. Minor gaps like pagination or ordering are not critical here, but their absence keeps it from a 5.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that retired agents are hidden by default unless the parameter is set, which is not stated in the schema itself.
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 'List' and resource 'registered agents', and enumerates returned fields (unread counts, last activity, ping binding, recent ping health). It does not differentiate from siblings such as bridge_register or bridge_sessions, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only conditional detail is the default hiding of retired agents, which is about parameter behavior, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.