Retrieve a specific model from the Rockfish AI platform using its model ID, so you can inspect or reuse it in synthetic data and ML workflows.
Get a specific model by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Model ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read via 'Get', but says nothing about error behavior for a missing/invalid ID, permissions required, or what the returned model object contains — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('by ID') is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than maximally useful.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the minimum is met. Still missing are error behavior on unknown IDs and any hint of what a 'model' is here, which would help an agent call it correctly in context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description's 'by ID' merely restates the schema, adding no format, source, or validation detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (model) with a clear retrieval-by-ID scope, so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_models, get_trained_model_id, or get_model's related delete_model/upload_model, leaving the agent to infer which one fits.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_models (enumerate) or get_trained_model_id (resolve a trained artifact). The phrase 'by ID' weakly implies the caller must already have an ID, but this is inference rather than stated guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.