Identify which Ollama models currently claim GPU VRAM, either across all models or for one specific model, to see what is occupying memory.
See who's claiming what right now (all models, or one).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The casual 'See who's claiming what' implies a read-only operation but discloses no return format, pagination, or operational caveats. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 clause with zero waste. Verb, resource, temporal scope, and model-filter semantics are all packed into one short sentence; every word earns its place.
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 simple one-optional-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose and the model filter adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the return shape of 'who's claiming what' is entirely unspecified — an agent won't know what fields the result contains. Adequate but not complete.
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 — and it does. The '(all models, or one)' parenthetical meaningfully explains that null means all models and a value filters to a single model, semantics the bare schema (string|null, default null) doesn't convey. Good compensation for the one parameter.
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 uses 'See who's claiming what right now' — a specific verb (list/view) plus resource (current claims). The 'right now' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like history and trend, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.
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 'right now' phrasing implies current-state usage versus past-state siblings (history, trend), and 'all models, or one' hints at the model filter. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives — usage context is implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.