List configured LLM providers in opencode.
List configured LLM providers in opencode.
{"success": bool, "message": str, "data": {"providers": [{"name": str}]}}
opencode_list_providers()
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.11Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the exact return envelope (success/message/data.providers[].name), which matters because no output schema exists. It stops short of covering failure modes (e.g. what happens when no providers are configured) or whether credentials/validation are involved.
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?
Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact return schema; nothing is bloated. The '## Examples' section restates the zero-argument call with no added information, which is the only near-dead weight.
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 enough: purpose, return shape, and a call example. A brief note on what 'configured' means (e.g. whether unconfigured/available providers are excluded) would close the remaining gap.
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. The example call correctly reinforces the no-argument invocation.
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 ('List configured LLM providers in opencode'), which is unambiguous. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like opencode_get_config or opencode_get_health, but it never names or contrasts those alternatives explicitly.
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 by the tool's name and zero-parameter signature — an agent will infer 'call this to discover available providers.' There is no statement of when to prefer it over opencode_get_config (which likely also exposes provider configuration) and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.