list_connectorsSee which context sources are configured or disabled, including the reason for disabled sources.
Shows which context sources are configured and which are disabled, with the reason.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a read-only operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds a useful detail: the tool reports the reason for disabled connectors, which is not covered by annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like output format or potential delays. Given the annotation coverage, this is an adequate but not exceptional disclosure.
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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It has no filler or redundant content, and every word contributes to clarity. It is an excellent example of concise, structured definition.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys its function. It explains what is shown (configured/disabled with reason), which is the core need. It could potentially mention the output structure (e.g., 'returns a list'), but the description already implies a list of statuses. Given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 parameters earn a baseline of 4. The description need not explain parameters since none exist, and it provides no additional parameter-related semantics. The baseline is appropriate.
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 tool 'shows which context sources are configured and which are disabled, with the reason.' This is a specific verb (shows) and resource (context sources/connectors), and it distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_conversations, list_handoffs) by focusing on connectors. The purpose is unambiguous and self-contained.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer list_connectors over list_publish_targets or list_handoffs. It does not mention exclusions or context for selection. The reader must rely on the tool name to infer usage, which is insufficient given the many sibling list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.