list_retiring_modelsList tracked models scheduled to retire within a time window, soonest first. Use this to audit a codebase or plan migration work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Restrict to one provider. Omit for all providers. | |
| withinDays | No | Only include models retiring within this many days. Defaults to 180. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so description's behavioral disclosure is less critical. The description adds ordering (soonest first) but lacks details like pagination or result limits, which would be helpful.
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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and use case without extraneous text.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately hints at what is returned (list of retiring models, ordered). Given simple parameters and clear purpose, the description completes the context well.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema properties.
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 clearly states the tool lists models retiring soon, with ordering (soonest first) and use cases (audit codebase, plan migrations). It distinguishes from siblings like search_models or recent_lifecycle_changes by focusing on imminent retirements.
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?
The description explicitly says when to use it: 'audit a codebase or plan migration work.' It implies not to use for general model search or recent changes, but does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: check_model validates a specific model ID, list_retiring_models shows upcoming retirements, recent_lifecycle_changes shows recent events, search_models allows filtered queries, and suggest_replacement provides alternatives. No overlap.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (check_model, list_retiring_models, search_models, suggest_replacement), but 'recent_lifecycle_changes' uses an adjective instead of a verb, breaking the pattern slightly.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of model lifecycle management. Each tool addresses a core need without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers key lifecycle tasks: checking status, listing retirements, recent changes, searching, and suggesting replacements. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to view all models without filtering, but search_models with no filter achieves that).