get_format_infoRetrieve detailed specs for floating-point or integer formats, including value ranges, bias, and special-value support, to validate encodings and choose formats.
Get detailed information about a floating-point or integer format, including value range (max/min normal, subnormal), bias, and special value support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | Yes | Format preset key (e.g. "bf16") or custom format object. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's added value is the disclosure of what is actually returned — value range (normal/subnormal), bias, and special value support. That return-content disclosure is meaningful given there is no output schema. It does not mention error behavior for an unrecognized format key.
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 well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the payload details following. No filler; slightly long but every clause describes a returned field.
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?
With one required parameter fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so adequately by listing range/bias/special-value fields. Only the accepted preset-key set and invalid-input behavior are left unstated.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that 'format' accepts a preset key like "bf16" or a custom format object. The description says nothing about the parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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?
Specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a ... format') with the returned content enumerated (range, bias, special values). It is clearly differentiated in function from list_formats or encode_number, though it never names the siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup tool you call before encoding/decoding with a given format. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no mention of list_formats for discovery, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.