seedance_list_modelsLists enabled video models with names and credit prices via an authenticated read-only request, so you can check availability before generation and avoid 404 errors from disabled models.
List currently enabled video models, names and credit prices. Authenticated read-only request. Call before generation; disabled models return 404. Returns the provider data array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context annotations don't: authentication is required, disabled models surface as 404, and only currently enabled models appear. It stops short of describing pagination or rate limits, but adds real value.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage and return info; nothing is filler. Minor redundancy: 'Authenticated read-only request' restates annotation hints, but the authentication detail is arguably new information.
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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers what it does, when to call it, the failure case, and roughly what comes back (provider data array with names and credit prices). A short note on array shape or fields would make it fully airtight, but nothing essential is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics.
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 and resource ('List currently enabled video models') plus what is returned (names and credit prices). This clearly separates it from siblings like seedance_get_video or seedance_create_video, which act on a single model/video rather than enumerating available models.
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?
'Call before generation' gives an explicit trigger condition, and 'disabled models return 404' explains a related failure mode. It doesn't name specific sibling alternatives, but the catalog-then-generate flow is clear enough to place the call correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.