get_modelRetrieve a single model by project and model ID to view its name, description, version count, and aliases with their linked modelVersionId values.
Fetch a single model by id (name, description, version count, and
aliases: each alias with the modelVersionId it points to).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about returned fields, including alias-to-modelVersionId mapping, but does not describe permissions, error behavior, or rate limits.
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?
The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The key operation comes first, followed by a compact description of the returned model data.
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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema plus rich annotations, so the short description is workable. However, it leaves parameter meaning and sibling-tool selection largely to inference, which is a meaningful gap for an agent choosing among many model-related tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented required parameters. It says the model is fetched 'by id', but does not explain model_id versus project_id, nor their expected formats or scoping relationship.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: fetch a single model by id. It also names the return fields, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as list_models or get_model_version.
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 only implied usage from 'fetch a single model by id'. It does not state when to use this tool versus list_models, get_model_version, or list_model_aliases, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.