Skip to main content
Glama

Glushkov Modelling MCP

by com.glushkov-modelling
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List model slugs

list_model_slugs

Read-only. Finds valid sailing-ship model slugs by full or partial model name, build status, manufacturer, or scale. Use this tool when another tool requires a model slug and the user provides only a human-readable model name or identifying metadata. Use list_builds when the user wants to browse or compare the model catalog. Returns matching model titles, slugs, URLs, and minimal identification metadata. When name matches more than one model, ambiguous is true and results contains all matching candidates. If no models match the criteria, returns an empty results array.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoFull or partial model name to search for. Matching is case-insensitive and checks both the model title and slug. If omitted, all models are considered.
scaleNoFilter by exact model scale, for example '1:64'.
statusNoFilter by build status. If omitted, models with all statuses are considered.
manufacturerNoFilter by kit manufacturer using a case-insensitive partial match.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / manufacturer / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by kit manufacturer (partial match, case-insensitive)."New value: +"Filter by kit manufacturer using a case-insensitive partial match."
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Full or partial name of the building to search for slug. Search is case insensitive and looks for an occurrence both in the name and in the slug itself. If not specified, all models are returned."New value: +"Full or partial model name to search for. Matching is case-insensitive and checks both the model title and slug. If omitted, all models are considered."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scale / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by model scale (exact match, e.g., '1:64')."New value: +"Filter by exact model scale, for example '1:64'."
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by build status."New value: +"Filter by build status. If omitted, models with all statuses are considered."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only, describes the returned fields, explains the 'ambiguous' flag behavior, and specifies the empty-results case. It omits minor details like pagination or result limits, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with 'Read-only' and the core purpose, then moves into usage guidance and output behavior. Each sentence serves a distinct function with no wasteful filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, output contents, disambiguation behavior, and the no-match case. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the common slug-resolution workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds little beyond restating the filter dimensions, which is acceptable but does not elevate above the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Finds valid sailing-ship model slugs' by several clear criteria. It also distinguishes itself from list_builds, so an agent can tell which tool to use without inspecting other definitions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: when another tool requires a model slug and the user provides a human-readable name or metadata. It also names the alternative list_builds for browsing/comparing the catalog, making the routing decision unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Glushkov Modelling MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources