piweb_list_modelsLists available Pi models (provider/model), the default model, and thinking levels for a project directory so you can pick values before creating a session or switching models.
列出某个项目目录下 pi 可用的模型（provider/model 形式）与默认模型、可用思考等级。新建会话或切模型前拿它选值。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | 项目目录，默认取当前会话/常用目录；不确定就传会话的 cwd | |
| limit | No | 最多列出多少，默认 60 | |
| filter | No | 只看名字里含该关键词的模型 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already establish the safety profile, so the description doesn't need to restate that it is a read. It does add real value by disclosing what the call surfaces — available models, the default model, and thinking levels — which is behavior beyond the annotations and, with no output schema, otherwise unavailable.
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 tight sentences. The capability and its output content come first, and the usage trigger is packed into the second clause with 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 output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return content, and all three optional parameters are covered by the schema. It stops short of mentioning truncation or the limit's effect on results, which is the only real gap for a listing tool of this kind.
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%: cwd, limit (default 60, max 500), and filter are each documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('列出某个项目目录下 pi 可用的模型') and specifies the returned shape (provider/model form, default model, available thinking levels). That return-content detail cleanly separates it from the mutation sibling piweb_set_model, which the usage clause implicitly routes away from.
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?
It states exactly when to call it: '新建会话或切模型前拿它选值' — before creating a session or switching models, to pick a value. It gives no explicit when-not condition or named alternative, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.