List all available agents, with names, descriptions, and modes, for a target project directory or the server's default project.
List all available agents with names, descriptions, and modes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries more burden. It communicates the read-only nature through 'List' and specifies the return fields, but it does not disclose permissions, pagination, sorting, or any other operational behavior beyond the basic listing action.
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 with no filler. Every part of it ('List all available agents', return fields) earns its place for a simple list operation.
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 simple, optional-param list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the resource and return fields, though it could optionally note that the listing is read-only or scoped by the optional directory.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional directory parameter, so the schema already explains its meaning and default. The description adds no further parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (available agents), and it names the returned fields (names, descriptions, modes). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many session, message, file, and provider listing siblings by specifying agents as the resource.
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 implied by the purpose: an agent would call this when it needs to discover available agents. However, the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.