Retrieve the agent registry to identify available AI agents for coordination, without exposing secrets. Use it to verify participants before task handoffs.
List the agent registry (no secrets).
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — output contains no secrets — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size limits.
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 filler, but it is so terse that there is essentially no structure to evaluate beyond the leading verb.
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 bears some responsibility for describing what is returned; 'the agent registry (no secrets)' gives only a partial picture (no field list, pagination, or registry contents). For a zero-parameter read this is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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; the baseline for 0 params is 4. No parameter-related gaps exist.
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 and resource ('List the agent registry') and adds a scope qualifier ('no secrets') that distinguishes it from a credential-dumping read. It does not explicitly name siblings like get_agent_status, but the plural listing verb makes the distinction reasonably clear.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance and does not point to alternatives such as get_agent_status for a single agent. The only usage signal is the implicit notion that 'list' means enumerating all agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.