droid-mcp

droid_models

Read-only

List built-in and custom BYOK models, tier aliases, and version wildcards that Droid can run; filter results by ID, name, or provider.

Instructions

List the models droid can run: built-in ids with their reasoning efforts, BYOK custom models from settings, tier aliases and version wildcards. filter matches id, name or provider.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "droid_models"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filter`	No
`include`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful content detail by naming the four model categories returned, but says nothing about ordering, result volume, or whether BYOK entries require configured credentials — gaps that matter for a settings-derived list.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by filter semantics. Every clause carries information; only minor gain would come from restructuring the filter sentence.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 2-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description effectively documents the return shape by naming the model categories and explains the main filter's matching fields. The unexplained 'include' parameter is the one remaining hole.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden: it clarifies that 'filter' matches id, name, or provider, which the bare schema does not convey. However, the 'include' array of builtin/custom/aliases is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters explained only by its enum values.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the models droid can run') and enumerates exactly what the listing contains: built-in ids with reasoning efforts, BYOK custom models, tier aliases, and version wildcards. No sibling overlaps this resource, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies a discovery use case (find model ids/aliases to use elsewhere) but never says when to call it, whether it is needed before droid_start, or any preconditions. The 'filter matches id, name or provider' note helps with invocation but not with tool selection.

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

Deploy Server