list_providersLists available research providers, models, capabilities, and default assignments per budget tier to help choose the right provider for a query.
List available research providers, their models, capabilities, and the default provider assignments per budget tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| budgetTier | No | If provided, show only the defaults for this tier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the categories of returned data (providers, models, capabilities, tier defaults), which is genuinely useful behavior context, but it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it needs auth, or whether the list is cached/static.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the returned content, with no filler or restated title boilerplate. Every clause earns its place.
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-required-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and how budgetTier narrows it. It lacks only a note on when the tool is worth calling versus the other research family tools, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single budgetTier parameter already has an enum and its own description ('If provided, show only the defaults for this tier'). The description corroborates the tier-scoping semantics ('default provider assignments per budget tier') but adds no syntax or behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List available research providers') and additionally enumerates what the listing contains (models, capabilities, default provider assignments per budget tier). This is far more specific than the title alone, though it never distinguishes itself from sibling discovery tools like research or usage.
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?
No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given, so guidance is only implied — the mention of 'default provider assignments per budget tier' hints that this is a discovery/metadata call made before configuring a research request. An agent can infer intent but is not told when to prefer this over, say, research_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.