Retrieve all configured LLM providers from the GoClaw AI gateway to manage AI infrastructure and configurations.
List all configured LLM providers
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "goclaw_provider_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('List') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or if it's paginated. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It tells the agent what the tool does but lacks important context about output format, behavioral constraints, and usage guidelines. For a basic list operation, this is adequate but leaves the agent to guess about implementation details.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. It correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than non-existent inputs.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all configured LLM providers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like goclaw_provider_get (retrieve single provider) and goclaw_provider_create (create new provider) by focusing on listing all providers. However, it doesn't specify what 'configured' means or the scope of the listing.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether providers must be configured first), when to choose this over goclaw_provider_get for specific providers, or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.