list_environmentsList configured environments and identify the active one. Returns variable keys with secret-shaped values redacted, so you can verify setup before switching.
List configured environments and which one is active. Variables are returned with their keys but secret-shaped values are redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: variable keys are returned and secret-shaped values are redacted, which tells the agent what data will and will not be visible in the result.
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, no filler, and the primary purpose (list environments + active one) is front-loaded before the data-handling caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
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 output schema available, the description carries the burden of describing the response and does so adequately: it names the environments, the active indicator, variable keys, and redaction behavior. Minor gaps remain (ordering, whether the list can be empty), but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 no per-parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly characterizes the single return payload (environments plus active flag, variable keys with redacted secrets).
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 specific verb and resource ("List configured environments") and adds the key distinguishing detail that it also reports which environment is active. An agent can differentiate it from attach_environment, though the sibling is never named explicitly, so this falls just short of the top band.
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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as attach_environment. For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool the intended usage is strongly implied, so it lands at the minimum-viable level rather than being absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.