List the generation models (image and video) with their capabilities and prices in milli-credits (1000 = 1 credit).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "generation.list_models"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the pricing unit (milli-credits, 1000 = 1 credit), which is genuinely useful and not derivable from any structured field. It says nothing about whether this is a static catalog, whether results are cached, or whether the list can be filtered by media type.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The unit-conversion parenthetical is the one added detail and it earns its place by preventing credit/milli-credit mistakes.
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 no-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (models, capabilities, prices) and in what unit. Only return-format specifics such as ordering or pagination are absent, which is minor at this complexity.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered full listing rather than suggesting nonexistent filter options.
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?
Names a specific verb (list) and resource (generation models), and specifies scope: image and video models with capabilities and prices. It is distinguishable from the closest siblings (generation.list, generation.status) because it targets the model catalog rather than jobs, but it never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. An agent must infer on its own that this is the discovery step to run before shot.generate_video or generation calls.
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.