list_providersList registered search and package providers, showing which are default versus opt-in and allowing filtering by search, package, or all.
List the registered search and package providers (default vs. opt-in).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider_type | No | Which providers to list: 'search', 'package', or 'all'. | all |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the default/opt-in distinction adds useful context, but it does not explicitly state safety, auth requirements, or pagination behavior.
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 zero waste. It states the action and scope immediately.
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 read-only list tool with full parameter schema coverage and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states what is listed and the default/opt-in distinction, though it could say more about when to use this versus siblings.
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 coverage is 100%, so the sole provider_type parameter is already documented. The description mentions search and package providers and default vs. opt-in, but adds no parameter syntax or value meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states a specific verb (List) and resource (registered search and package providers), adding a meaningful scope distinction between default and opt-in providers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as web_search or package_version, but the resource is distinct enough for selection.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned. An agent can infer it is for inspecting provider registration, but the description does not route between this and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.