List the models this gateway can route to, best first. Every one is reachable with the same Qumge key — no per-vendor signup. Only tool-calling models are listed: an agent cannot use the others.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many to return. Default 20, max 60. | |
| query | No | Optional. Filter by name or vendor, e.g. 'claude', 'gemini'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing that all models are reachable with the same Qumge key (no per-vendor signup), only tool-calling models are listed, and ordering is 'best first.' These are non-obvious behaviors beyond a generic list. It does not mention pagination or error cases, but the key behavioral traits are covered.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function and ordering, the second clarifies authentication, and the third sets an important constraint. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no fluff or redundancy.
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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs: what models are listed, how they are ordered, the authentication benefit, and the tool-calling filter. It does not specify the exact return fields or error behavior, but for a model-listing tool, the information provided is reasonably complete.
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?
The schema already fully describes both parameters (limit and query) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra parameter-related context—it does not elaborate on how the filter works beyond what the schema says. Per baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the explanatory load.
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's function: 'List the models this gateway can route to, best first.' It specifies the resource (models), the action (list), and adds a helpful qualifier ('best first') plus a scope restriction ('Only tool-calling models are listed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with bundles, skills, or categories.
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 implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to see available models that can be routed to, notably with the same Qumge key. It also gives an exclusion hint: models that are not tool-calling are not listed, so if you need those, this tool is not sufficient. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools, though none of the siblings are model-related.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: get_bundle vs get_skill differ by granularity, list_bundles/list_categories/list_models list different entity types, and search_skills is the discovery tool. Minor overlap exists between list_bundles and list_categories as both support browsing, but descriptions clarify their purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for fetches, list_* for enumerations, and search_* for querying. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a skills catalog server. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the discovery/installation workflow, and the count is within the ideal range.
The tool surface covers the core workflow: search, browse categories/bundles, and fetch content for installation. A minor gap is the lack of a direct 'list all skills' endpoint, but categories and search compensate adequately.
