Plan or download missing models for a chosen UVR architecture, returning an install plan by default and executing it only when confirmed.
Plan or download missing models for one supported architecture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arch | Yes | Architecture whose supported missing models to install. | |
| confirm | No | True executes the stated change. False returns its plan. |
| 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 destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the plan-versus-execute framing, but does not disclose what downloading entails (network fetch, potentially large transfers, disk writes) beyond what annotations imply.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a destructive, network-facing operation.
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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a destructive open-world tool with sibling overlap, the description omits the network-download implication and the choice against download_model.
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%, and the 'confirm' parameter description already explains plan versus execute, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
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 (plan or download) and resource (missing models) scoped to one architecture, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like download_model or list_models, leaving the exact boundary of 'missing models' and 'supported architecture' ambiguous.
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 indication of when to use this instead of download_model, list_models, find_model, or refresh_catalog, even though several siblings clearly overlap. There is also no stated prerequisite (e.g., network availability or a fresh catalog) for the download path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.