List registered AI agents from the agent registry. Filter agents by status (active, pending, retired) to find the ones you need.
List registered agents from the agent registry (agora/agents.json).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status_filter | No | Filter by status: active, pending, retired (default: all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (agora/agents.json), providing useful context, but it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, though that is strongly implied by 'List'. Returns no information about permissions or performance.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action, object, and source. No unnecessary words, repetition, or filler.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the source and the filter capability is covered by the schema. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of objects with names), which would be useful given the lack of an output schema. Still, the tool is simple enough that the gap is minor.
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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'status_filter' with its allowed values and default, yielding 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 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' with a clear resource ('registered agents') and identifies the exact source ('agora/agents.json'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_profiles. Purpose is unambiguous and scoped.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The usage is implied by the nature of the task (listing agents), but no comparisons to sibling tools or preconditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.