Polyfork low-poly 3D assets

get_asset

Full detail for one asset: real-world size in metres, triangle count, palette, animatable parts, renders you can open to SEE it, and the correct download URLs for the caller. A model with has_ik also returns a measured gait or arm block: segment lengths, foot offsets, phase order, step length, reach. That is everything needed to make it walk or reach in any engine, and /cdn/walk.mjs already does it for three.js. If the asset is paid and this connection does not own it, the reply carries the price and a buy link instead: quote both.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	asset id, e.g. windmill-3aad49

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details special cases (has_ik returning gait/arm blocks), paid-asset behavior (returns price and buy link), and caller-specific download URLs. It also instructs to 'quote both' for paid assets, providing rich behavioral insight.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and each subsequent sentence adds valuable specifics. It is somewhat dense, especially the first sentence, but there is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise for the information conveyed.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains all return scenarios: standard asset details, the has_ik block, and paid-asset fallback. It also mentions how the data can be applied, making it complete for a one-parameter tool.

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?

The schema already documents the only parameter 'id' with a clear example. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, only about the output. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Full detail for one asset' and enumerates specific returned fields (size, triangle count, palette, animatable parts, renders, download URLs). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling search/list tools by focusing on retrieving comprehensive data for a single asset.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description conveys clear usage context: when you need full detail for a specific asset and even how the data can be used (e.g., with /cdn/walk.mjs). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Polyfork low-poly 3D assets tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct workflow: catalogue search, single-asset detail, kit listing/detail, variant generation, scene matching, terrain placement, preview, ownership, help, and feedback. Even the retrieval-heavy tools are separated by clear operation and output. An agent should be able to pick the right tool from descriptions alone.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names are snake_case action phrases with consistent get_, list_, search_, find_, preview_, and report_ conventions. Retrieval tools uniformly start with get_ or list_, and the exceptions still follow a predictable action-first structure. There is no mixed casing or synonym soup.

Tool Count5/5

At 11 tools the surface is well-scoped for a 3D asset catalogue and scene-building server. Each tool covers a distinct capability and none feels redundant or decorative. This is comfortably within the ideal range for a focused server.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the full discovery-to-scene workflow: search, inspect, kit composition, variant remixing, terrain placement, scene preview, and ownership checks. Missing catalogue entries and rough edges are explicitly handled by report_need, and get_help covers misuse, so there are no dead ends. No obvious domain operations appear absent for this server's stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?