together_get_fine_tuneFetch one fine-tuning job: status, progress, hyperparameters, token counts, cost and the output model name. Together: GET /fine-tunes/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fine_tune_id | Yes | The job id, e.g. ft-abc123. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further by enumerating what is returned (status, progress, hyperparameters, token counts, cost, output model name) and naming the underlying REST call, which is genuinely useful behavioral detail given there is no output schema. It omits auth and rate-limit context, so not a 5.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and return payload front-loaded and the REST mapping as a compact trailing detail. Every clause 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields, and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. It is nearly complete; only the absence of any usage/prerequisite framing keeps it from a 5.
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% and the single fine_tune_id parameter is documented with an example (ft-abc123). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one fine-tuning job), and enumerates the returned content, which cleanly separates it from the sibling together_list_fine_tunes. An agent can identify it as the singular read-by-id counterpart without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the singular-by-id form and the sibling list tool, but the description never states when to reach for this versus together_list_fine_tunes or together_list_fine_tune_events, nor any prerequisite such as obtaining the id first. No explicit when/when-not guidance.
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.