Browse available MetaModel calculators and engineering models. Returns project names, descriptions, tokens, and model names for each published project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the return contents (project names, descriptions, etc.) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects). With annotations covering safety, the added value is moderate.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and follows with specifics, achieving maximum conciseness for the information provided.
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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains what is returned. It could mention pagination or ordering, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from this.
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 available MetaModel calculators and engineering models, specifying the returned data (names, descriptions, tokens, model names). It uses a specific verb 'browse' and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that compute or get schemas.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like metamodel_compute or metamodel_get_schema. There is no explicit context for its place in a workflow.
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, non-overlapping purpose: listing projects, fetching schema, and running computations. The workflow is clear and sequential.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the same prefix 'metamodel_', making them easy to distinguish.
With only 3 tools for a focused modeling service, each earns its place. The count is ideal for discoverability and straightforward usage.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle for the server's purpose: discover projects, inspect schema, and run computations. No obvious gaps for a read-only computational service.
