easydeploy-ai-mcp

Official

by EasyDeploy-AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Get model version

get_model_version

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve one model version by project ID, model ID, and version ID to inspect status, report status, target, aliases, and timestamps. Use it when the version ID is known instead of listing versions.

Instructions

Fetch a single model version by id (status, edaReportStatus, target, aliases pointing to it, timestamps). Prefer this over list_model_versions when you already know the version_id.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model_id`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`version_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it fetches one version and names some response fields, but does not describe not-found/error behavior or authentication requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two tight sentences with no filler, and the core lookup behavior is front-loaded. The sibling routing note is placed immediately after the purpose statement.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Rich annotations and an output schema cover safety behavior and return shape, so the description mainly needs to support selection and invocation. Selection is handled well, but invocation context for the three required IDs is thin, leaving a notable gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and none of project_id, model_id, or version_id has a description. The phrase 'by id' and the mention of version_id help only partially; the required project/model/version hierarchy and any ID format expectations are left unexplained.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('single model version'), and lookup key ('by id'), and it names several returned fields. It also distinguishes itself from list_model_versions, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly names the alternative list_model_versions and states the condition for preferring this tool: when the version_id is already known. This gives clear routing guidance for the main ambiguity among siblings.

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