suggest_replacementGiven a deprecated or retiring model, return the provider's recommended replacement(s) and, when none is published, active models from the same provider to consider.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | Model id or alias to find a replacement for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the fallback behavior (active models from same provider when no official replacement). No contradictions with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.
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?
Single sentence with no redundancy. All information is essential and front-loaded.
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 provides adequate coverage of behavior for a simple tool, though it could specify return format (e.g., list of model names).
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% and the description adds context about the input type (deprecated/retiring models), which clarifies valid inputs beyond the schema's 'model id or alias'.
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 returns recommended replacements for deprecated models, with a specific verb ('return') and resource. It is distinct from siblings like search_models or list_retiring_models.
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 ('given a deprecated or retiring model') but does not provide when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools for related tasks.
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).