Retrieves every theorem prover system available on SystemOnTPTP, helping you choose a suitable prover for logical verification or counterexample search.
List every theorem prover system available on SystemOnTPTP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does 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 safe read, and the source (SystemOnTPTP) is disclosed, but return format, whether entries are IDs or full metadata, and any pagination or availability caveats are not described.
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. The scope word "every" and the source system both earn their 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?
For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells an agent what will be listed and from where. It leaves the shape of the returned list implicit, which is a minor gap only.
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 are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description is needed or misleading here.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (theorem prover systems), plus the source system (SystemOnTPTP) and scope (every). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list_backends or compare_provers, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent discovers available provers before calling run_prover or compare_provers. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_backends or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.