jev_modelsList models your API key can access, showing available options for direct or zen endpoints. Use this to identify which Jev System One models are available for typed judgments.
List models your key can use (GET /v1/models on direct; static list on zen).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | No | direct |
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that 'direct' performs a live GET /v1/models call while 'zen' returns a static list. It does not discuss errors or rate limits, but for a simple listing operation the key behavioral distinction is present.
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?
The description is a single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. The parenthetical adds the important endpoint nuance without wasted words.
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 a one-optional-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, key-based scope, and endpoint-dependent behavior. Nothing essential for correctly invoking the tool is missing.
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%, so the description must compensate. The parenthetical names both 'direct' and 'zen' behaviors, giving meaning to the endpoint parameter beyond the schema's default. It stops short of explicitly saying the parameter accepts these two string values, but an agent can infer it confidently.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List models your key can use.' It also distinguishes the tool's scope (models available to the key) and the direct/zen behavioral split, making it easy to tell apart from the evaluation/scoring siblings.
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: use this tool when you need models accessible with the current key, and it explains the direct vs zen behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the sibling tools are clearly different operations, so the omission is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.