fireworks_get_modelGet a single model by id. Control-plane: GET /v1/accounts/{account_id}/models/{model_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | Yes | Model id (the resource segment, e.g. 'llama-v3p1-8b-instruct'). | |
| account_id | No | Fireworks account id. Overrides FIREWORKS_ACCOUNT_ID for this call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate read-only behavior. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the endpoint reference (GET). For a simple retrieval, this is adequate but not enriched.
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 concise with two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides the REST endpoint. No unnecessary words.
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 simplicity of a get operation with 2 parameters and annotations, the description is sufficient. It lacks return format details but that is acceptable as output schema is absent and the tool is straightforward.
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%, with both parameters described adequately in the schema. The description does not add further parameter details, so it meets the baseline of not needing to compensate.
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 explicitly states 'Get a single model by id,' clearly indicating the verb (get) and resource (model). This distinguishes it from siblings like fireworks_list_models, which lists multiple models, and other get tools for different resources (account, dataset, deployment).
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like fireworks_list_models. It implies use for retrieving a specific model by ID, but lacks direct comparisons or exclusions.
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 resource and action combination (e.g., create_dataset vs delete_deployment vs list_models), with no overlapping purposes. Descriptions clearly differentiate each tool.
All tools follow a consistent 'fireworks_verb_noun' pattern, with verbs like create, delete, get, list and singular or plural nouns as appropriate. No mixing of conventions.
14 tools cover the main resources of the Fireworks platform (accounts, datasets, deployments, fine-tuning jobs, models, batch inference, users). The scope is appropriate and not overwhelming.
The tool set is heavily read-oriented with only one creation tool (create_dataset) and one deletion tool (delete_deployment). Missing create for deployments, fine-tuning jobs, models; missing update and delete for most resources. Gaps would hinder full workflow automation.