List model IDs available to your configured provider API key for image generation. Optionally filter by name substring to find specific models.
List models visible to the configured provider API key. Does not generate images or prove generation permission. image_candidate is only a name heuristic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Optional case-insensitive substring filter. Omit to see all IDs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context: results are scoped by the configured API key, listing models does not establish generation entitlement, and image_candidate is only a name heuristic rather than a verified capability.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's action and scope, with no redundant restatement of the name. Slightly telegraphic in the second and third sentences, but each contributes a distinct caveat.
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 discloses that returned models carry an image_candidate field and that it is a name-based heuristic only. Scope, auth dependency, and the generation caveat are covered; pagination or result-size behavior is not mentioned, a minor gap.
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 single filter parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including case-insensitivity and the omit-to-see-all behavior), so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail about filtering; its only field-level remark concerns image_candidate, which is a returned value, not an input.
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 and resource ('List models') plus the scope that governs the result set ('visible to the configured provider API key'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_image by stating it 'does not generate images,' so an agent can separate discovery from generation without opening either 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?
The negative clause 'does not generate images or prove generation permission' tells the agent when NOT to reach for this tool and points the task toward generate_image. There is no positive framing such as 'use this first to discover model IDs before calling generate_image,' so the routing is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.