mistral_list_modelsLists all available Mistral models and their capabilities so you can choose the right model for chat, embeddings, or fine-tuning tasks.
List all available Mistral models with capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only 'with capabilities', a small hint at return content, and since no output schema exists it does not disclose what fields or capability data actually come back.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
For a no-parameter list tool with no output schema and safety fully covered by annotations, the definition is serviceable but thin — it never says what 'capabilities' means or what the list entries contain, which is the one thing an agent might need to chain calls to mistral_get_model.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to add.
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 (List) and resource (Mistral models) with a scope qualifier ('all available') and a hint at payload content ('with capabilities'). It is clearly distinguishable from mistral_get_model and mistral_delete_model by the plural/listing framing, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the listing verb — an agent can infer this is the discovery/browse call — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when to call mistral_get_model instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.