search_packsFind cohesive free GLB game kits by text, theme or style. Returns file counts, total bytes and starter scene URLs. Use get_pack for every individual model and loader snippet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Alias for query, as spelled by the REST API | |
| query | No | Free-text search over pack titles and summaries | |
| style | No | Style tag slug, e.g. low-poly, realistic, voxel | |
| theme | No | Theme tag slug, e.g. sci-fi, fantasy, modern |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return contents (file counts, total bytes, starter scene URLs) and implicitly indicates a read-only search operation. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which would add further transparency.
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?
Three concise sentences deliver purpose, return content, and follow-up guidance with no redundant wording. The structure front-loads the main action and then adds relevant details.
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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies what results look like (file counts, total bytes, starter scene URLs) and directs the agent to get_pack for deeper model-level details. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use the 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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping its search dimensions ('text, theme or style') to the query, theme, and style parameters, and clarifies that q is an alias. It does not introduce extra semantic constraints beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a clear object ('cohesive free GLB game kits' = asset packs), and the search dimensions (text, theme, style). It distinguishes from the sibling search_assets by focusing on packs, and names get_pack as the follow-up for individual 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?
It gives explicit guidance to use get_pack for individual model and loader details, implying search_packs returns pack-level summaries. However, it does not directly contrast with search_assets to clarify when to choose one search over the other.
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.