Downloads an embedding model into a running Ollama instance, defaulting to bge-m3, so the advisor server can generate embeddings; repeated pulls are idempotent.
Скачать модель эмбеддингов в запущенный ollama (идемпотентно). default bge-m3.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two genuinely useful behavioral facts: the operation is idempotent and the default model is bge-m3. It omits other important traits such as download size/time expectations, network requirements, and failure behavior, so it is helpful but incomplete.
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?
Two short sentences with zero padding; the action and its target are front-loaded, followed by the two most useful qualifiers (idempotent, default model). Tight and well-ordered.
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 one-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and default but leaves out the return/result behavior and any prerequisite detail about the running ollama instance. Adequate, not complete.
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?
The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does supply the default value ('default bge-m3'), which the schema does not show, but it says nothing about accepted model name syntax or how the parameter interacts with the idempotency claim.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Скачать модель эмбеддингов' = download an embedding model) plus the target ('в запущенный ollama'), so an agent knows exactly what happens. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close siblings ollama_ensure and ollama_status, which is the only thing keeping this from a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool is for getting an embedding model into a running ollama. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no routing to the obvious alternatives (ollama_ensure, ollama_status) despite their presence as siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.