connector_listList all registered connectors with IDs, names, domains, statuses, and capability flags to check which can search, fetch, or act.
List all registered connectors with their id, display name, domain, status, and capability flags (can_search / can_fetch / can_act).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying which attributes of each connector are exposed (domain, status, capability flags), but says nothing about auth requirements, whether disabled/unhealthy connectors are included, or result size.
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 no filler; the field list is the only elaboration and it is directly useful given there is no output schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the key fields. It is nearly complete for a no-arg read tool, but omits whether the list is filtered by health/enabled state and whether the capability flags map to the available connector_*_search/fetch/act tools.
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 of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or pagination inputs 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 all registered connectors') and enumerates the exact fields returned, so the agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby connector_health tool or explain how the listed connectors relate to the connector_<service>_<verb> siblings.
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?
There is no when-to-use statement, no mention of connector_health as an alternative for status/diagnostics, and no indication of when this discovery call is or isn't appropriate. Discovery before calling a specific connector connector_<name>_* tool is only inferable, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.