OpenPapers

Find Hugging Face models

find_models

Search Hugging Face for model repositories, retrieving revisions and card metadata to support reproducible research workflows.

Instructions

Find model repositories on Hugging Face, including revision and card metadata when available.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_models"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only search operation and discloses that revision and card metadata are returned when available. It does not cover pagination, ordering, network/auth requirements, or failure behavior, but for a simple search tool the main behavior is clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds a useful output detail. There is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It names the resource and hints at returned metadata, but it does not explain query behavior, result shape, or how limit affects output. Given the minimal schema, more detail would meaningfully improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the query and limit parameters. It does not mention either parameter explicitly. The parameter names and schema constraints provide some meaning, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond what can be inferred from the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool finds Hugging Face model repositories and mentions the metadata content it returns. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like find_datasets and find_implementations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for searching model repositories on Hugging Face, which provides reasonable context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar siblings like find_datasets or find_repository_configs, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.