List configured providers and their default models for a project directory, defaulting to the server's project. Use to verify available model providers.
List configured providers and their default models.
| 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. The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether output can be large, or formatting; for a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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 with zero filler; the resource and the returned content (default models) come first.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, minimal description is acceptable. However, it omits how this differs from the closely related provider_list/provider_models tools, which is the main thing an agent needs to disambiguate.
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?
There is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'directory' and its default. The description adds nothing about the parameter or how the directory scopes results, 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 states a specific verb and resource: list configured providers plus their default models. That is clearer than a bare name restatement, but it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as opencode_provider_list and opencode_provider_models, so an agent cannot tell which of the three to pick.
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 when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance is given. There is no mention of how this differs from opencode_provider_list or opencode_config_get, leaving the agent to guess based on names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.