Retrieve available embedding model options to select a suitable model for your workflow. Optionally filter by purpose to see models for use or configuration.
Get available embedding model options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purpose | No | Optional provider visibility purpose |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.12.2Input schema / properties / purposeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional provider visibility purpose",
+ "enum": [
+ "use",
+ "configure"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v4.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: it does not confirm this is a safe read, whether options depend on configured providers or credentials, or whether the result is filtered. A single-purpose list tool deserves at least a note on scope and prerequisites.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of a richer body of content.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the shape of the returned options and what conditions affect them; it does neither. For a tool whose output is its entire value, this is a significant gap.
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 100%, so the single parameter and its enum are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no interpretation of 'purpose' (e.g. what 'configure' visibility reveals), so it neither compensates nor detracts.
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 ('Get ... embedding model options'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling get_language_model_options, leaving the boundary between the two implicit.
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 statement of when to call this versus get_language_model_options, list_models, or list_enabled_models, all of which appear in the sibling list. The 'purpose' parameter's two modes ('use' vs 'configure') are also unexplained, so the agent gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.