What this connection can currently do: whether a key is attached, which assets and kits it owns, and therefore which downloads will work. Call it before promising the user a paid file, and when a download 404s, rather than guessing whether the problem is the key or the asset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains what information is returned (key status, owned assets/kits, download viability) and implies a read-only diagnostic nature. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or describe the response format.
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?
The description is two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the tool's purpose and the second providing usage guidance. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: what the tool reveals and when to call it. It is almost complete, though it omits the exact return format, which is a minor gap for agents expecting structured output.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.
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 indicates the tool reports the connection's current state: key attachment, owned assets/kits, and download viability. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the connection rather than individual assets or kits, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'.
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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'before promising the user a paid file' and 'when a download 404s'. It provides concrete usage scenarios but does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternative tools.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
