metadata_get_model_cardRetrieve EPA CompTox model cards with optional filters for endpoint, compliance, and model name, plus cursor-based pagination.
Retrieve CompTox model cards with optional filters and pagination
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| endpoint | No | ||
| compliance | No | ||
| model_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modelCards | No | ||
| nextCursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that results can be filtered and paginated, which is a small behavioral increment and omits pagination/cursor semantics and error behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with 5 all-optional parameters at 0% schema coverage and no required-parameter guidance, the description leaves an agent unable to construct a meaningful query. It should at least explain what a model card is and what each filter narrows.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at 'filters' and 'pagination', which maps loosely onto model_name/compliance/endpoint and limit/cursor, but gives no meaning for any parameter, no enum values (approved/draft), and no format for cursor or endpoint.
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?
States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (CompTox model cards), so the agent knows the data domain. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling metadata_* and catalog tools, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would pick this over metadata_get_applicability_domain or get_contract_manifest.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the numerous sibling tools. 'Optional filters and pagination' describes the schema, not the usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.