List configured GPU hosts with display names and SSH targets, so you know which identifiers to use with other tools.
List the configured GPU hosts: display name and ssh target. No remote calls; use it to learn the names the other tools accept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral context. It discloses that the tool makes 'no remote calls' and that it returns configured host display names and SSH targets, which covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs to know before invoking it.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable context about side-effect-free behavior and intended use.
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 that there are no parameterswing, no output schema is present, and the complexity is low, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool returnsable, that it makes no remote calls, and that its output is a reference for other tools. Nothing important is missing.
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 accruing to the schema description coverage of 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured GPU hosts') and specifies the exact output content: display name and ssh target. It also clarifies its role relative to other tools by saying it provides the names other tools accept, which helps an agent understand its purpose without confusion.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to learn the names that other tools accept with no remote calls. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use alternatives, so it falls short of full guidance, but the intended usage is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.