List all models within an Ultralytics project using its slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI to quickly retrieve available models for management or deployment.
List models in a project by slug, owner/slug, or project ul:// URI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project ref by slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.12Input schema / properties / project / descriptionPrevious value: -"Project ref by id, slug, username/slug, or ul:// URI."New value: +"Project ref by slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI."v0.1.6Input schema / properties / project / descriptionAdded value: +"Project ref by id, slug, username/slug, or ul:// URI."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, return format, or rate limits, so it provides minimal value beyond what annotations already convey.
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 sentence with the action front-loaded and no redundant wording. Every word contributes to specifying the tool's purpose and input format.
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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the input format and the action clearly, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.
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% and the description repeats the parameter description verbatim ('Project ref by slug, owner/slug, or ul:// URI'), adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?
The description states the verb 'List', the resource 'models', and the scope 'in a project', plus three explicit ways to specify the project (slug, owner/slug, ul:// URI). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like models_get (single model) and models_delete (destructive).
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?
Provides clear context on how to specify the project, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer the use case (listing models) without confusion, though it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.