get_modelRetrieve a single model's details by its ID within a project, including name, description, and version count.
Fetch a single model by id (name, description, version count).
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that, and its parenthetical about returned fields duplicates what the output schema already carries.
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 zero filler; the lookup key and the returned shape are stated immediately.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be restated, and annotations cover the safety profile, making the short description nearly sufficient for a simple getter. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage context, it leaves visible gaps for a two-required-parameter tool.
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 carry the parameter burden, but it only gestures at 'id' and never disambiguates model_id from project_id, both required. An agent gets no help on which identifier to supply.
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 (Fetch) and resource (model) with the scope qualifier 'single ... by id', which separates it from the list_models sibling. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_model_version, keeping it short of a 5.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_model_version or list_models. The usage is only inferable from the name and required ids.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.