Set TTL and draft model options for an LM Studio model to manage its lifetime and enable speculative decoding.
Configure model settings such as TTL and draft model for speculative decoding
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ttl | No | Time-To-Live in seconds (optional) | |
| model_id | Yes | The ID of the model to configure | |
| draft_model | No | Draft model ID for speculative decoding (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at the domain (TTL, speculative decoding) but says nothing about permissions required, whether changes apply immediately or require a reload, whether settings are reversible, or what happens to settings not specified.
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 efficient sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized, though it is on the thin side for a mutation tool.
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 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, as a mutation with zero annotation coverage, it leaves important behavioral context (side effects, required state, permission needs) unaddressed.
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 schema already documents all three parameters including the required model_id and the units for ttl. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (Configure) and resource (model settings) and names two concrete settings (TTL, draft model for speculative decoding). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools list_models/get_model_details/load_model/unload_model, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 guidance on when to use this versus load_model/unload_model, no prerequisites (e.g. must the model be loaded?), and no indication of when configuring is appropriate or not. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.