list_providersRetrieve all configured image generation providers and their available models, optionally filtered by provider name, to pick the right backend for your AI image tasks.
List all configured image generation providers and their available models
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Filter by provider name: openrouter, together, replicate, fal |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only enumeration of current configuration ('configured providers', 'available models'), which is helpful, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether credentials or keys are exposed in the output, or how large the result can be.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope are stated immediately and nothing is wasted.
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, parameterized list tool with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. The remaining gap is minor: it does not describe the shape of the returned provider/model list or indicate whether filtering is exact-match.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'provider' parameter already enumerates the accepted values (openrouter, together, replicate, fal) plus its filter semantics, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all configured image generation providers and their available models'), and it is easy to tell apart from the sibling generate_image, which performs a mutation rather than discovery. It stops short of naming the sibling or contrasting behavior explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 alternatives, nor any workflow context (e.g., 'use before generate_image to discover valid providers'). The optional provider filter is never mentioned in the description, so its usage is left entirely to the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.