Discover available Claude model IDs and current bridge defaults to choose a different model for subagent tasks. Use this list when switching models, not on every spawn.
List model IDs advertised by the local proxy and current bridge defaults. Use when choosing a different model, not before every spawn. Effort support varies by model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful behavioral note about 'Effort support varies by model' and 'List' implies a safe read operation. However, it does not disclose return format, potential absence of models, or any other runtime behavior an agent might need to anticipate.
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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage nuance is delivered in the second. Every word 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it lists, when to use it, and a key behavioral caveat about effort support. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it, though a bit more detail on the output shape would be nice.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the returned data represents (model IDs and bridge defaults), which is sufficient since there are no parameters to document.
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 ('List') and resource ('model IDs advertised by the local proxy and current bridge defaults'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling agent-focused tools like list_claude_agents, and there is no ambiguity about what is being listed.
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?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when choosing a different model, not before every spawn.' This tells the agent when to call it and when not to. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the sibling list makes the alternative tools apparent, so the guidance is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.