Gemini MCP Server

List Gemini Agent Models

gemini_agent_models

List the model labels available to the Gemini agent. Use these labels, obtained from agy models, to specify the agent's model.

Instructions

List the model labels available to the Gemini agent (gemini_agent). These come from agy models and differ from the API models in gemini_list_models — use the exact label as the agent's "model".

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": "gemini_agent_models"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes
`models`	Yes
`success`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.3.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that labels come from `agy models` and are agent-specific, which is useful. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or list ordering. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds the critical distinction and usage hint. Efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Given 0 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, source, and differentiation from a sibling. It could briefly note that no arguments are needed, but that is inferable from the schema. Overall complete for a listing tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the output is model labels for the agent and that they should be used exactly as the 'model' parameter in the agent. This is beyond what the empty schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool lists model labels for the Gemini agent, and distinguishes it from the sibling gemini_list_models by noting the source and purpose. The verb 'List' and resource 'model labels' are specific.

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?

The description explicitly contrasts with gemini_list_models ('differ from the API models'), providing a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use. It also instructs to use the exact label as the agent's model.

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