List mounted capability servers with their tools, source, health, and verification status so agents can check available capabilities before building new ones.
List mounted capability servers with their tools, source, health and verification status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. It does disclose what each entry contains (tools, source, health, verification status), which is genuinely useful, but it never states that the operation is side-effect free, whether it requires the servers to be reachable, or how costly/slow the health probing is.
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 verb and scope come first and the returned fields follow. Nothing is repeated from structured data.
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?
An output schema exists and the parameter list is empty, so the remaining burden is small and the description covers the core behavior plus the shape of each listed entry. It stops short of stating read-only semantics or any operational caveats around the health check.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing filter options that the empty schema does not support.
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 (List) and resource (mounted capability servers), plus the fields surfaced (tools, source, health, verification status). The enumeration framing implicitly contrasts with capability_search, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 only implied: 'List mounted' suggests a full inventory sweep, in contrast to a query-style tool like capability_search. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.