model_list_parametersList parameter catalog rows. Optional filters: streamId, role, layer, primaryOwner.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "model_list_parameters"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| role | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| streamId | No | ||
| primaryOwner | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool lists parameter catalog rows and that several properties act as optional filters, but it does not describe filter combination semantics, pagination, ordering, or what the returned data looks like.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the optional filter list is compact and scannable.
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 read/list tool with no required parameters and no nested objects, the description is mostly adequate for invocation. However, the missing output schema and the lack of parameter detail for all five fields leave some ambiguity about the response shape and the exact meaning of each filter.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It names four of the five properties and marks them as optional filters, but it does not explain their meaning or value formats, and it omits the 'id' property entirely.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List parameter catalog rows.' It also names the main filter fields, which helps identify the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly contrast it with model_get_parameter or other sibling list tools, so differentiation relies mostly on the resource name.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as model_get_parameter or model_upsert_parameter. The only usage hint is that filters are optional, which implies it can be used for full or filtered listing but provides no exclusions or selection criteria.
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.