search_modelsList tracked models, optionally filtered by provider and lifecycle state. Use this to discover what is currently available from a provider.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results. | |
| state | No | Filter by canonical lifecycle state, e.g. 'active' or 'deprecated'. | |
| provider | No | Filter by provider. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so description carries less burden. It adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, completeness). Adequate but not enhanced.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no waste. Very concise and well-structured.
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 tool's simplicity, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It addresses the core purpose and usage without needing more detail.
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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description merely restates the filter options (provider and lifecycle state) already documented in schema. No additional value beyond 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?
The description clearly states it lists tracked models with optional filters by provider and lifecycle state. The verb 'list' and resource 'tracked models' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like check_model (details) and list_retiring_models (specific subset).
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?
Explicitly advises use to discover what's available from a provider. Does not exclude when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given sibling tool names.
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).