Lists available GPUs with VRAM, bandwidth, TDP, and interconnect specs, enabling rapid assessment of model compatibility for deployment planning.
List known GPUs with VRAM/bandwidth/TDP/interconnect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as output format, size limits, or whether it reflects real-time data. The simple listing implies read-only behavior but this is not explicitly stated.
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 a single, focused sentence that directly states the core action and output characteristics. There is no wasted text, and it is immediately understandable.
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, parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It identifies the resource (GPUs) and the key attributes (VRAM/bandwidth/TDP/interconnect). However, it could marginally benefit from a note on data recency or ordering, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed. Since there are no parameters, no additional semantic information is required.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List known GPUs' with specific attributes (VRAM/bandwidth/TDP/interconnect). This is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes from siblings like chimeraforge_plan and chimeraforge_resolve_model.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely functional with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.