List AI gateway aliases and enabled status, showing each alias's provider, model, and secret key reference without exposing key values.
List the machine AI gateway's aliases and whether the gateway is enabled.
Each alias shows its provider, provider model, base_url and the
``${secrets.shared.KEY}`` reference of its key: never a key value.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the return fields (provider, provider model, base_url, key reference) and an important security behavior — keys appear only as ${secrets.shared.KEY} references, never values. It does not mention whether the gateway must be configured or any permission requirements, which keeps it below a 5.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the return-shape detail. The stray indentation and RST-style double backticks are cosmetic clutter but do not obscure meaning.
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 no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: what is listed and what each entry contains. It is only slightly short on prerequisites (does the gateway need to be enabled/configured for this to return data?).
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. No misleading parameter hints are present.
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: lists the AI gateway's aliases plus the gateway enabled flag. This is clearly distinct from set_ai_route/remove_ai_route (mutations) and from list_ai_provider_models (provider catalog), though it never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-only inspection call for AI routes. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or reference to the alternative siblings (list_ai_provider_models, get_ai_usage, set_ai_route) that an agent would weigh before calling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.