list_modelsList registered local models, identify the default, and check whether each is running with its start command if not. Use it to see available models before sending prompts.
The registered local models, which one is the default, and whether each is running (with its start command if not).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 and openWorldHint=false, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-shape burden is largely carried elsewhere. The description adds a modest value: that unstarted models include a start command, hinting at actionable follow-up. It does not discuss refresh, caching, or whether the list is dynamic.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary content and never wastes a word. Nothing is repeated from the title or 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient; return values need not be restated because the output schema covers them.
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 no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.
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 names the resource concretely and enumerates the three things it surfaces: registered local models, which is the default, and each one's running state. It is clearly distinguishable from the only sibling, 'ask', but it never names the action (list) in the description itself and offers no explicit sibling differentiation.
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 statement of when to call this tool versus the 'ask' sibling, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the content it returns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.