list_agentsDiscover which coding agent CLIs are installed, check their versions, and see the models available to pass to ask_agent.
Show which agent CLIs are installed on this machine, their versions and the models you can pass to ask_agent.
| 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope context ('installed on this machine'), but does not discuss return shape or environment assumptions beyond that.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and enumerates the three outputs without wasted words. Nothing redundantly restates the name or title.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned (CLIs, versions, models). It is nearly complete, lacking only a nudge to call it before ask_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 4 applies; the schema is trivially complete.
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?
Specific verb (show which) plus a precise resource set: installed agent CLIs, their versions, and the models accepted by ask_agent. It clearly frames this as a discovery tool, distinguishing it from the execution siblings ask_agent/ask_agents and the diff-oriented review_changes.
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 mention of 'models you can pass to ask_agent' implies this should be consulted before using ask_agent, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named-alternative instruction. The relationship to siblings is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.