fireworks_list_deployed_modelsList deployed models (model↔deployment bindings). Control-plane: GET /v1/accounts/{account_id}/deployedModels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | Page size (max 200). | |
| pageToken | No | Opaque page token from a previous response's nextPageToken. | |
| 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?
The description supplements the 'readOnlyHint' annotation by specifying the HTTP method 'GET' and labeling it a 'Control-plane' operation. This adds context about the nature of the call, which is beyond what the annotation alone provides. No destructive behavior is mentioned, consistent with the annotation.
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 fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides the API endpoint. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at the return format. It does not. The pagination parameters imply pagination, but the response structure (e.g., nextPageToken) is not mentioned. Overall adequate but lacks completeness for a tool without output schema.
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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the endpoint '{account_id}' but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The value added is marginal.
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 'List deployed models' and elaborates with '(model↔deployment bindings)', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fireworks_list_models' and 'fireworks_list_deployments' by clarifying the scope as bindings between models and deployments.
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 provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither explains the ideal use case nor mentions when not to use it. Sibling tools such as 'fireworks_list_models' and 'fireworks_list_deployments' exist, and the description offers no criteria for selection.
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.