List registered agents, filter by status or role, and review agent records stored in the persistent memory layer.
List registered agents, optionally filtered by status and/or role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| database | No | ||
| as_records | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.20Input schema / properties / as_recordsAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "As Records",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.9v0.1.7v0.1.2Input schema / properties / timeoutAdded value: +{
+ "default": 30,
+ "title": "Timeout",
+ "type": "number"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, expensive, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, concise sentence that immediately states the primary action and the optional filters. There is no fluff or redundant information, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It earns a perfect score for efficiency and clarity of structure.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain return format, behavior of the extra parameters, or any edge cases. An agent would have to rely on the schema alone, which lacks descriptions, leaving many unknowns. The description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It explicitly explains 'status' and 'role' as filters, but leaves 'timeout', 'database', and 'as_records' completely unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides for those two parameters, and fails to cover the majority.
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') and resource ('registered agents'), making the core purpose clear. It also mentions optional filters for status and role, which adds specificity. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like tools_list_domains or task_list, though the resource name is unambiguous.
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 implies usage for retrieving agents and mentions optional filters, giving some context on when to apply them. But it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. Since there are no obvious competing listing tools among siblings, the lack of exclusion is a minor gap, but no when-to-use vs. alternatives is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.