Nanites

List Provider Models

nanites_listProviderModels

Retrieve cached model lists from cloud providers to manage model availability for delegated tasks.

Instructions

List cached models from a cloud provider.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "nanites_listProviderModels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`provider`	Yes
`registered_only`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral information. It mentions 'cached' which implies it reads from a local cache rather than calling the provider, a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, authentication, or whether the result is ordered or filtered. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter and usage details, so it is appropriately sized for the information it does convey.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the meaning of the enum values, what 'registered_only' does, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 2 parameters and a sibling set with similar names, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention 'provider' or 'registered_only' at all, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema enum and boolean type. No additional meaning is added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb-resource pair: list cached models from a cloud provider. It adds 'cached' which distinguishes it from other listing tools like list_models or nanites_discoverProviderModels, but does not explicitly differentiate beyond that, so not a perfect 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nanites_discoverProviderModels or list_models. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it. Given the large sibling set, this is a significant gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server