checkpoint_listList training and sampler checkpoints for a Tinker training run using its training_run_id to inspect progress and select artifacts.
List training and sampler checkpoints for a Tinker training run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| training_run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the useful scope detail that both training and sampler checkpoints are returned, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or freshness of results beyond what annotations cover.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It could optionally carry a scope or ordering note, but nothing is redundant.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, with only the sibling disambiguation and pagination behavior left unaddressed.
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?
Only one parameter (training_run_id) at 0% schema coverage, but the name is self-explanatory and the description's 'for a Tinker training run' ties it to the run context. No format or acquisition hints are added beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('training and sampler checkpoints') scoped to a training run, which is more precise than the title. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like checkpoint_get or the mutating checkpoint_* tools, but the list/retrieve distinction is inferable.
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 guidance on when to use this versus checkpoint_get or the many other checkpoint_* siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name alone; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.