list_methodsRetrieve the M-code taxonomy of uncensoring methods with model and download counts per code to compare abliteration, weight editing, merges, fine-tunes, and repackages.
The M-code taxonomy of uncensoring methods (GET /methods): abliteration, weight editing, merges, fine-tunes, repackages, with model and download counts per code. Cost: 5 credits.
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new context: an explicit cost of 5 credits per call and the shape of the payload (counts per code). It does not discuss result size or ordering, but the added value is real.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource, then the enumerated taxonomy, then the cost. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what the resource is, what each entry contains, and the credit cost. Minor omissions (result size, whether the list is exhaustive) keep it short of a 5.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the text misrepresents the parameter surface.
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 resource (the M-code taxonomy of uncensoring methods) and enumerates its contents (abliteration, weight editing, merges, fine-tunes, repackages) with the per-code payload (model and download counts). The plural 'list' scope versus the singular get_method sibling is only implicitly conveyed, but an agent can still tell what this returns.
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-use guidance, and no alternative is named — an agent is not told to prefer get_method for a single code or that this is the entry point for the taxonomy. The only usage-adjacent fact is the credit cost.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.