Retrieves available agent profiles while hiding system prompts and secrets, enabling safe discovery of reusable role-based agents for solo or multi-agent discussions.
List profiles without exposing system prompts or secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 carries the full burden. It does disclose one valuable behavioral trait — that system prompts and secrets are not exposed — which the agent could not infer otherwise, but it says nothing about pagination, scope, or permissions for a list operation.
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 tight sentence with the privacy caveat placed where it matters. No filler, though it is arguably terse enough to leave gaps.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. What remains missing is any guidance on when to call it relative to the run/create/update siblings, which leaves the definition only minimally viable.
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 the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to compensate for.
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 verb 'List' is clear, but the resource named is 'profiles' while the tool is named list_agents, leaving the agent to infer they are the same objects. It provides no differentiation from the sibling tools (create_agent, update_agent, run_solo, run_discussion), though the read/list nature is implied.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling create/update/run tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.