fireworks_list_deploymentsList deployments (serving instances) in the account. Control-plane: GET /v1/accounts/{account_id}/deployments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Server-side filter expression. | |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds the control-plane endpoint detail but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or rate limits. With annotations present, the description provides minimal additional value.
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 very concise with one sentence and an endpoint specification. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the title is redundant with the description.
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 the tool (4 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic use. However, because there is no output schema, the description should ideally mention the return structure or pagination behavior, which it does not.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the input schema already provides for the parameters. The schema descriptions are detailed (e.g., 'Server-side filter expression', 'Opaque page token').
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 action ('List deployments') and the resource ('deployments (serving instances)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `fireworks_get_deployment` and `fireworks_delete_deployment` by specifying the scope 'in the account' and the control-plane endpoint.
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 listing all deployments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `fireworks_get_deployment` (for a single deployment) or `fireworks_delete_deployment`. No exclusions or usage context are provided.
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.