list_modelsRetrieve available model IDs to set the model parameter for delegation tools. Use it to choose valid models when configuring delegated coding or exploration tasks.
List model IDs usable for the model parameter of delegation tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (model IDs) and their intended use, but says nothing about whether the list is static or dynamic, its size/format, or pagination — though for a zero-param lister the risk profile is inherently low.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and adds the one piece of context an agent needs (where the IDs are consumed). No wasted words.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (model IDs) and why they matter. It is sufficient for a trivial lister, though it could note whether the list is stable or environment-dependent.
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 there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.
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 (model IDs), and scopes it to a concrete purpose: values usable for the `model` parameter of delegation tools. This distinguishes it from list_agents and the task tools, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.
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 implies when to use it by naming the `model` parameter of delegation tools as the consumer of these IDs, which is a useful contextual hook. However, it never states when to call it versus siblings or any prerequisite conditions, leaving usage implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.