models_listList Cookbook-known models or, in live mode, retrieve authoritative server-supported models. Discover available models before planning training or evaluation runs.
List Cookbook-known models; live mode returns authoritative server-supported models.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| live | No |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it explains the default returns a cached/known catalog while live mode hits the server for authoritative results, which signals differing freshness and cost.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the default behavior and then the mode switch. No filler or restatement of the name.
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-value detail is unnecessary, and the tool is a simple single-flag list operation. The description covers both modes adequately, though it does not state whether results are paginated or the shape differs between modes.
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 single 'live' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It does explain what live=true yields (authoritative server-supported models) versus the default, which is meaningful semantic value.
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 ('Cookbook-known models'), and distinguishes two operational modes via the live flag. It does not name or differentiate itself against any sibling, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative, but the clause 'live mode returns authoritative server-supported models' implies the selection condition for live=true versus the default. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.