Show every configured host with its access mode and description, enabling quick identification of available remote servers and their connection permissions.
List every configured host with its access mode and description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this operation is purely read-only (no side effects), whether it reflects dynamic state or static config, or whether it may be slow due to connectivity checks. The verb 'list' implies read-only, but key behavioral details are omitted.
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 contains the essential information with no fluff. It earns its place and is easy to scan.
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's low complexity (0 params) and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'configured host' means in the context of this host-management toolset—for example, whether hosts are filtered by reachability or whether it reads from cache. This matters for selecting the right tool among siblings like reload_hosts and check_connection.
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 there is no parameter behavior to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add anything about schema specifics. No gaps 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 states the exact action ('List'), the resource ('every configured host'), and the specific fields returned ('access mode and description'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like reload_hosts or list_directory.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reload_hosts or check_connection. The description does not mention whether this list is read from static configuration or if it queries live hosts, which would influence tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.