List Deployed Live Models
list_deployedList the user's currently deployed (live) models.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
list_deployedList the user's currently deployed (live) models.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating the action, so it meets the baseline but offers no additional 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that is clear and without any extraneous information. Every word is necessary.
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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies scope ('user's'). However, it could be improved by differentiating from the sibling 'list_models' to avoid ambiguity.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description correctly adds no parameter information since none exist.
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 clearly states it lists the user's currently deployed (live) models, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('deployed live models'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'list_models' which likely lists all 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?
The description implies usage for viewing live models but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_models', nor any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, though browse_community, find_strategy, and one_shot (community_id) are related and could cause confusion if descriptions are not read carefully. Overall well-differentiated.
Overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun pattern (browse_community, find_strategy, generate_strategy, get_deploy_result, etc.). A few exceptions like 'one_shot' and 'top_up' break the pattern but are still clear and memorable.
13 tools cover the major functions of a trading strategy platform (discover, generate, deploy, monitor, account management). The count feels appropriate, though 'stream_test' is diagnotic and may not be needed in all contexts.
Covers core workflows well—browse, find, generate, deploy, and get results. However, lacks tools to update or stop a deployed model, and there's no way to edit an existing strategy, leaving some lifecycle gaps.