List local AI agents with names, categories, executables, work directories, and descriptions. Use it to find available agents and their record locations.
本机 Agent 客户端名册：名字、分类、可执行文件、工作记录目录、简介。想知道「这台机器上有哪些 Agent 可以干活、它们的记录在哪」用它。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. '名册' and '有哪些…在哪里' make clear this is a read-only listing of local client configuration rather than an action/mutation, and the listed fields hint at the report shape. It could be more explicit about side-effect-free behavior or data source, but the inventory framing is sufficient.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the resource and contents, then gives the exact user question that should invoke it. Every clause adds value; no repetition of the tool name.
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, no-output-schema inventory tool, the description fully covers what the tool is, what data it exposes, and when to call it. Nothing necessary for selecting and invoking the tool 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 has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Description identifies a precise resource (local Agent client roster) and enumerates its contents: names, categories, executables, work-log directories, and summaries. The '想知道…用它' phrasing makes the intended selection immediate and distinguishes this listing tool from sibling inventory tools.
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?
Provides an explicit trigger condition: use when you need to know which Agents on this machine can work and where their records live. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.