list_workersLists independently identified CLI workers and the caller's background task receipts so you can target the correct worker; do not use a native Desktop chat ID as a worker destination.
List independently identified CLI workers and this caller's background task receipts. These are separate from Desktop chats; never use a native chat ID as a worker destination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.26.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not: the listing includes both CLI workers and background task receipts, and worker identities are distinct from chat IDs — a real behavioral caveat for downstream calls.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and followed by the disambiguation caveat. Every clause carries information; there is no 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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns at a functional level and how its identifiers differ from chat IDs. It could mention roughly what fields a worker entry has, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.
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 disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level detail is missing.
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 and two concrete resources: CLI workers and this caller's background task receipts. It also draws a boundary against Desktop chats, which separates it from the codex/chat-oriented siblings, though it never names an actual sibling tool.
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?
Usage is implied: you call this to discover workers before addressing one, and the description warns never to use a native chat ID as a worker destination. That is a useful constraint, but there is no explicit routing such as 'use worker_status to check a single worker's state'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.