Resolve a model ID to its actual parameters and architecture, grounding specs for reliable LLM deployment planning.
Resolve a model id to real params/architecture (grounds hallucinated specs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| allow_network | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool resolves/grounds specs, but it does not disclose read-only behavior, network usage, failure handling, or what happens when a model id cannot be resolved.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical 'grounds hallucinated specs' adds relevant context without bloating the description.
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?
The description is minimally actionable and communicates the core purpose and expected result, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves important context unexplained, especially around `allow_network` and failure behavior.
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 0%. The description only hints at the `model` parameter via 'model id' and says nothing about the `allow_network` parameter, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Resolve a model id to real params/architecture' and adds the functional purpose 'grounds hallucinated specs.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like chimeraforge_plan and chimeraforge_list_hardware.
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?
The context is implied: use this when a model id may be hallucinated and needs to be resolved to concrete architecture/params. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with the alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.