Lists all available tool names on this host, optionally filtered by a search term. Use to check what capabilities or specific commands are accessible.
List all assistant tool names available on this host, optionally filtered by a search term. Use when the user asks what tools/capabilities/commands you have, what you can do, or whether a specific capability exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the host-scoped and filterable nature of the listing, which is useful but not a major behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by direct usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.
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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is fully sufficient. The output is self-evident (tool names), annotations cover safety, and the usage context is stated clearly.
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 description explains that the filter is a search term, adding some meaning beyond the schema's bare 'filter' property. However, it does not specify matching behavior (substring, case-sensitivity, exact match), and schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent must infer 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 states a specific action ('List all assistant tool names') and a clear resource scope ('available on this host'), with optional filtering. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like count_tools by emphasizing names rather than counts.
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 tells the agent when to use this tool: when the user asks what tools/capabilities/commands exist or whether a specific capability exists. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.