Retrieve detailed information for a single model from the Ultralytics Platform by supplying owner/project/model, ul:// URI, or slug with project.
Get details for one model by owner/project/model, ul://owner/project/model, or slug with a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | Model ref by owner/project/model, ul:// URI, or slug (requires project). | |
| project | No | Project ref required when model is given by slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.12Input schema / properties / model / descriptionPrevious value: -"Model id, or slug when project is also provided."New value: +"Model ref by owner/project/model, ul:// URI, or slug (requires project)."v0.1.6Input schema / properties / model / descriptionAdded value: +"Model id, or slug when project is also provided."Input schema / properties / project / descriptionAdded value: +"Project ref required when model is given by slug."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description does not add behavioral context beyond that, such as error behavior or response contents, but it does not contradict the annotations either.
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?
One sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and object before listing accepted input forms. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.
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 single-model read operation with complete schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides all identifier options needed to invoke it correctly. No output schema is present, but 'details' is sufficiently clear for this tool's purpose.
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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters fully. The description repeats the same identifier formats rather than adding new semantic value, meriting the baseline score of 3.
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 ('Get') and resource ('details for one model'), and enumerates the exact identifier forms accepted. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like models_list and model_download by focusing on a single model's details.
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 description provides clear context: use this when you need details for a single model and have one of the supported ref formats. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intent is obvious from the 'one model' wording and the ref requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.