List all managed agents with their status, busy flag, current task, and task counts to monitor orchestration.
List all managed agents with status, busy flag, current task and task counts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description discloses the output content (status, busy flag, current task, task counts). It does not detail potential edge behaviors like ordering or pagination, but for a zero-parameter listing tool these are not 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, scope, and return fields without any filler or repetition. Every word contributes useful information.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately lists what the returned data will contain, which is sufficient for an agent to interpret the result. The tool is simple (no parameters), so the description is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could briefly clarify 'managed agents' or task-count scope.
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 zero parameters, so the schema is empty and no parameter semantics are needed. The 0-parameter baseline applies, and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('all managed agents'), and the exact fields returned (status, busy flag, current task, task counts). It clearly differentiates from the singular-scope sibling 'agent_status' by emphasizing 'all managed agents'.
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 tells the agent what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as 'agent_status'. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools, so the usage context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.