CreateMod.com Schematics
Server Details
Read-only search and details for Minecraft Create Mod schematics on CreateMod.com.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- uberswe/createmod-claude
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for many schematics, the other retrieves details for a specific one. There is no overlap.
Both tool names use the consistent verb_noun pattern (search_schematics, get_schematic), following a predictable and clear naming convention.
With only two tools, the set is minimal but reasonable for a read-only catalog server focused on browsing and lookup. Additional tools like listing by author or category would be welcome.
The server covers the core use cases of searching for and viewing schematic details. While it lacks CRUD or user interaction, those are explicitly excluded, making the surface largely adequate for its intended scope.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_schematicGet schematic detailsAInspect
Get details about one schematic by its URL slug: description, author, rating, versions, required mods, video. The schematic file itself is not available to agents; direct users to the page URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The schematic's URL slug, e.g. 'easy-helicopter-survival-friendly' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the schematic file is not returned and suggests an alternative action. It also lists what data is returned. Some traits like auth needs or rate limits are not mentioned, but for a simple read tool, this is adequate.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and key limitation. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, how to use it, and what to avoid. Adequate for effective invocation.
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% with a single parameter fully described in the input schema. The description adds no new information about the parameter beyond the example provided in the schema, so baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves details for one schematic by URL slug, listing specific fields (description, author, rating, etc.) and explicitly notes what is not available. It differentiates from the sibling search_schematics tool by focusing on a single schematic.
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 tells when to use the tool (get details by slug) and provides a guideline about the file not being available, directing users to the page URL. It implicitly distinguishes from the search tool but does not explicitly mention that search_schematics should be used for finding schematics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_schematicsSearch schematicsAInspect
Search CreateMod.com for Minecraft Create Mod schematics. Returns matching builds with title, page URL, rating and stats. Send users to the page URL; never fetch .nbt schematic files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search terms, e.g. 'elevator' or 'wheat farm' | |
| category | No | Optional category key to filter by |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the return fields and forbids fetching .nbt files, but does not disclose potential rate limits, pagination, or idempotency. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words: first states purpose and output, second gives a critical usage constraint. Highly efficient.
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?
Despite no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, output fields, and a behavioral constraint. It lacks details on pagination or limits, but is sufficient for a search tool.
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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the tool searches CreateMod.com for Minecraft Create Mod schematics and returns matching builds with specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tool get_schematic by focusing on search versus retrieval.
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 provides a clear usage rule: send users to the page URL and never fetch .nbt files. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool get_schematic or specify when to use search vs. retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!