list_registered_modelsEnumerate models in the SAS Model Repository. Apply an optional limit to control the number of returned entries.
List models in the Model Repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum models to return (default 50). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Output schema / properties / result / items / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / properties / result / items / typeAdded value: +"object"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the location ('Model Repository') but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or side effects.
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 no filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list 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?
This is a simple read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations. The description is sufficient to understand the operation, though it could have added a note about the optional limit or how it differs from related list tools.
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 input schema describes the only parameter 'limit' fully with a default and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because the schema already carries that burden.
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 clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('models in the Model Repository'), so an agent can understand the basic operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools such as list_ml_projects, but the 'registered models' resource is specific enough.
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?
The description gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. It merely states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.