List configured coding agents and confirm local availability for orchestration.
Returns configured coding agents and their local availability
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_agents"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavior. It indicates this is a read-only listing operation and mentions 'local availability', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain what 'availability' means in practice (e.g., statuses, offline agents, error conditions), leaving some ambiguity.
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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and an additional qualifier ('local availability') with no redundant wording.
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 parameterless list tool, the description is sufficient to understand what it returns. However, the lack of output schema and absence of details about the return structure or meaning of 'availability' means the agent may not know what data fields to expect. Still, this is a simple tool and the description covers the essentials.
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, so the input schema carries no semantic burden. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the absence of parameter documentation is not a gap. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 states a clear verb ('Returns') and resource ('configured coding agents') and adds the scope 'local availability', which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_repositories. It is specific enough to be understood, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.
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 its use case: retrieving available coding agents. It does not state when to prefer this over list_repositories or other sibling tools, but given the tool name and description, the intended context is reasonably inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.