List all available slash commands for an OpenCode project, optionally for a specific directory, so MCP clients can discover and use supported commands.
List all available slash commands.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is a safe read (though the name implies it), what scope "all" covers (global vs project-defined commands), or the response shape. For an unannotated tool this is a notable 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?
A single short sentence, appropriately sized and front-loaded. It is efficient, though the word "all" is unqualified and slightly ambiguous rather than maximally informative.
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 low complexity (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity about scope of commands and their format. Complete enough to call, not complete enough to predict the result.
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%, so the single optional 'directory' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior or defaults beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the correct baseline.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ("List all available slash commands"), which is clear and distinguishable from the execution sibling opencode_command_execute. It does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this before opencode_command_execute to discover valid command names, nor when-not to call it. Usage is only weakly implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.