Queries NVIDIA NIM cloud models using a prompt and optional model alias, system prompt, and generation settings for reasoning, code review, vision analysis, and document extraction.
Alias para nim_query_model (compatibilidade com versões anteriores)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modelo | No | Nome ou alias do modelo. | |
| prompt | Yes | Mensagem ou pergunta. | |
| max_tokens | No | ||
| temperature | No | ||
| system_prompt | No | Prompt de sistema. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the tool delegates to nim_query_model; it says nothing about side effects, authentication, latency, return behavior, or whether calls are identical in every respect.
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 short parenthetical sentence with zero waste. The alias relationship and compatibility purpose are front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 an alias, pointing to nim_query_model gives the agent a route to full behavior, which is the minimum viable context. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the definition still leaves return values, side effects, and two parameter meanings undocumented.
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 description provides no parameter-level meaning at all. Schema coverage is 60%, leaving max_tokens and temperature undocumented, and the alias sentence does not compensate for those gaps or clarify how parameters are forwarded.
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 identifies the tool as an alias for nim_query_model, which precisely distinguishes it from siblings by naming its target. It does not independently state the verb/resource (querying a model), but the alias relationship is unambiguous.
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?
It gives clear context that this exists for backward compatibility and names the preferred sibling nim_query_model. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use nim_query_model for new integrations' or specifying when not to use this alias.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.