fireworks_list_modelsList models in the account (base + fine-tuned). Control-plane: GET /v1/accounts/{account_id}/models.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Server-side filter expression. | |
| orderBy | No | Field to order by, e.g. 'createTime desc'. | |
| 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. The description adds the HTTP method (GET), which is behavioral context but not critical. No details on pagination behavior or listing semantics are provided, but the read-only nature is clear.
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?
Two concise sentences: one for purpose and one for implementation detail (HTTP endpoint). No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 description states it lists both base and fine-tuned models, but does not explain pagination behavior despite having pageSize and pageToken parameters. No output schema exists, so return structure is omitted. Adequate but not thorough.
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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage constraints.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'models in the account', and specifies the scope (account) and types (base + fine-tuned). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like fireworks_list_datasets and fireworks_list_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fireworks_get_model or fireworks_list_deployed_models. The description does not provide context for selecting this tool over siblings.
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.