Save, load, list, or delete named model configurations to reuse settings across sessions. Load verifies postconditions for reliable configuration.
Save/reuse named model configurations in this project. load uses the SDK with postcondition verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| config | No | ||
| instance_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates local state. The description adds nothing about what save/delete actually do, whether delete is reversible, or what persists. With 4 actions including a destructive-sounding 'delete' (yet destructiveHint=false), the description should clarify but doesn't.
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?
Very short (two sentences), so no bloat, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The second sentence is oddly scoped to one action out of four rather than front-loading the overall behavior.
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?
A 5-parameter, multi-action mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only two thin sentences of description. Essential context about each action, parameter roles, and persistence/verification behavior 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 description coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the 5 parameters. The only enum (action) has four values whose meaning (list/save/load/delete) is left entirely to inference, and name/model/config/instance_id receive no explanation in either schema or description.
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 the general purpose (save/reuse named model configurations) with a specific verb+resource, but the second sentence about 'load' is confusing and the description never explains the multi-action 'action' enum (list/save/load/delete). It doesn't clearly distinguish this from siblings like lm_model_config or lm_load.
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 or when-not-to guidance, no mention of alternatives. The fragment 'load uses the SDK with postcondition verification' hints at a load path but doesn't tell the agent when to choose this tool over lm_load or lm_load_advanced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.