Inspect a named artifact to review configurations across multiple LLM providers. Retrieve details for a specific artifact by providing its identifier.
Inspect a manage multiple llm providers artifact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name/id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Inspect'. It does not mention return format, side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is safe beyond the verb's implication. This is thin for a tool with no annotation support.
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 description is appropriately short for a tool with one parameter, but the wording is awkward and confusing. It is concise in length yet lacks the clarity needed for the sentence to fully earn its place.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'inspect' returns and what the artifact is. The unclear phrase 'manage multiple llm providers artifact' leaves important gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke and interpret the result.
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 schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter, 'name', described as 'Name/id', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, semantics, or allowed values beyond what the schema already provides.
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 names a specific verb, 'Inspect', and a resource, 'artifact', so it is not a tautology. However, the phrase 'a manage multiple llm providers artifact' is grammatically broken and unclear, making the exact object of inspection vague. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aigw_status, aigw_list, or aigw_compare.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description neither states conditions, exclusions, nor alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from its name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.