List all fields and their types for a Gadget model. Use this to discover available fields when unsure.
List all fields and their types for a Gadget model. Run this first when you're unsure what fields exist on a model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | Model name in camelCase, e.g. shopifyOrder, label, shopifyShop |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states listing action with no disclosure of read-only nature, error handling, or performance implications. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. No redundant or missing words. Highly efficient.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Description covers purpose and usage. Could mention return format but not essential. Adequate for the 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter description. The tool description adds little beyond stating 'for a Gadget model', which is already implicit. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states 'List all fields and their types for a Gadget model' with a specific verb and resource. Distinct from sibling tools like list_models, introspect_actions, etc.
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?
Explicitly recommends running this tool 'first when you're unsure what fields exist on a model.' Provides a usage context but does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.