list_agentsReports available project agents, the active model policy and its source, tier map, allow-list, and whether the inference gateway is live or mocked.
Reports the agents the host project offers, the model policy in force and where it came from, the tier map, the allow-list, and whether the gateway is live or mocked.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return content the agent cannot get elsewhere — model policy and its provenance, tier map, allow-list, and whether the gateway is live or mocked — but never states outright that it is a read-only, side-effect-free call.
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 dense sentence with no filler, and the primary subject (agents offered) is front-loaded ahead of the secondary config details. The enumerated tail is long but each item is informative.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return shape — and it does, listing the agents, model policy, tier map, allow-list, and gateway status. That is close to complete for a zero-arg read tool, though it omits go/no-go guidance against run_agent.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 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?
States a specific verb ('Reports') and resource ('the agents the host project offers'), and enumerates the ancillary data returned. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling run_agent, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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 guidance on when to call this versus run_agent, nor any stated preconditions. The only cue is the implicit read-vs-execute split between the two tool names, which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.