model_providers_getReturns one model provider config's stored settings; secret values are never returned. The provider isn't contacted, so the response doesn't list its models.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | Organization ID (org_...). | |
| modelProviderConfigID | Yes | Model provider config ID (mpc_...). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / modelProviderConfigID / descriptionAdded value: +"Model provider config ID (mpc_...)."Input schema / properties / orgID / descriptionAdded value: +"Organization ID (org_...)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds two non-obvious traits: secrets are redacted from the response and the provider is not contacted, so models will be absent. It does not mention error behavior for invalid/missing IDs, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with what is returned before the caveats about what is omitted. Every clause carries information.
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 does the important work of telling the agent what will and will not appear in the response (no secrets, no models). It stops short of sketching the remaining returned fields or failure modes, which for a two-parameter read tool is a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own format pattern documentation, so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about modelProviderConfigID or orgID beyond what the schema states.
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 and resource ('Returns one model provider config's stored settings') and the singular scope distinguishes it from the sibling model_providers_list. An agent can pick it out of the six model_providers_* tools without opening any schema.
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 singular 'one ... config' implies the fetch-by-ID use case, but the description never states when to use this versus model_providers_list or model_providers_catalog, nor any prerequisites such as needing a valid org-scoped ID. Usage is left to inference.
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.