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.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by enumerating what the response contains, effectively compensating for the absent output schema. It does not mention behavior on an unknown or invalid id, which keeps it short of 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 compact sentences: the payload contents are front-loaded and the API route is appended as a supplementary anchor. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool, the description plus the fully documented schema covers what an agent needs, and the field enumeration substitutes for the missing output schema. Only error/not-found handling is left unaddressed.
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?
Only one parameter, documented in the schema with 100% coverage and a concrete example (ft-abc123). The description adds nothing about the id format beyond repeating the path template, so 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 exact payload fields returned (status, progress, hyperparameters, token counts, cost, output model name). It is clearly distinguished from siblings like together_list_fine_tunes and together_list_fine_tune_events.
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 singular-object naming plus the referenced endpoint GET /fine-tunes/{id} imply this is the single-job lookup counterpart to list_fine_tunes, but the description never says when to use it over listing or event-listing tools, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.