List saved contacts with names and fingerprints, your own fingerprint, inbox online status, and pending invitations to manage agent-to-agent connections.
List contacts (name, fingerprint), this machine's own fingerprint, whether its inbox is online, and pending invitations.
| 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety and mutability profile. The description adds return-content context by listing the four pieces of information produced, but it does not describe formatting, ordering, or any behavioral constraints beyond what annotations provide.
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 lists exactly what the tool returns. Every clause contributes information, and there is no redundant or filler text.
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 and no parameters, the description must carry the burden of explaining what is returned. It does list the main return items, which is sufficient for a simple listing tool, though it could be more complete by implying the structure or format of pending invitations and the contacts list.
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 are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the scoring rule, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.
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 uses a specific verb (List) and enumerates the resources returned: contacts with name and fingerprint, the machine's own fingerprint, inbox online state, and pending invitations. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like agenthop_status, which may also report local state.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context of use, or point to related sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the listed data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.