Retrieve detailed metadata for the Article model, including field definitions, relationships, and Django admin configuration. Inspect model structure for CRUD and admin setup.
Get detailed metadata about the Article model including field definitions, relationships, and admin configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does name the categories of information returned (field definitions, relationships, admin configuration), which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions required, or the shape/format of the response. Adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.
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 verb, resource, and payload contents all appear before any trailing clause.
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 and no annotations, the description is relied upon to convey return content, and it summarizes the three main buckets of metadata. It stops short of stating the response structure or any rate/permission constraints, but for a zero-parameter introspection call it is close to sufficient.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the target model is fixed (Article) rather than parameterized.
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?
Specific verb ('Get detailed metadata') plus a named resource (the Article model) and an enumeration of what the metadata covers (field definitions, relationships, admin configuration). It is distinguishable from get_article/list_article because it describes the model itself rather than records, though it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling describe_* tools.
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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as find_models or the record-level get_article. The agent must infer from the name that this is a schema-introspection call to run before constructing Article queries or mutations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.