Lists installed image upscaling and restoration model files, optionally inspecting each to report architecture, scale, and channels for local Mac GPU use.
List the model files in the models folders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inspect | No | Load each file on the CPU to report its architecture, scale and channels. The first listing of a large collection can take a few seconds; results are cached until a file changes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. Notably, the schema documents the costly CPU inspect/loading behavior and caching, but the description itself never mentions performance impact, caching, or that this is a read-only operation.
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 zero wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich 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?
For a no-argument, read-only listing tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any indication of what the listing returns or how models folders are resolved, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.
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 single parameter (inspect) is well documented in the schema with its default, cost, and caching semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 (list) and resource (model files in the models folders), which is clearly distinguishable from the job/device siblings such as jobs_list and device_info. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context about what the models folders are. The intended use (enumerate available models before an upscale/inference call) must be inferred from the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.