Free CC0 low-poly 3D models (GLB): rigged, animated animals, dinos, insects, people. No key.
Scored across 3 tools
get_model (single lookup by exact name) and search_models (query-based discovery, empty query lists all) have a slight overlap since both return model data, but the descriptions make the boundary clear. list_packs is clearly distinct as a pack-level resource. No real risk of misselection.
All three tools follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_model, list_packs, search_models. Predictable and readable throughout.
Three tools is on the thin side but matches the narrow read-only scope of a free model catalog. Each tool serves a distinct retrieval need (single model, pack listing, search).
The read-only lifecycle is well covered: search to discover, get_model for full detail with .glb URL and clips, list_packs for bulk/zip access. Minor gaps like fetching a single pack's detail or filtering by clip/licence, but agents can work around these via search and list_packs.
One model by name: its .glb URL, animation clip names, pack, licence and a three.js snippet that loads it and plays a clip by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The model's name as search_models returns it, e.g. 'Shark' or 'StoreManager'. | |
| pack | No | The pack id, when two packs have a model of that name. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the payload shape, including that a ready-to-run three.js loader snippet with clip playback is included, which is non-obvious behavior an agent can plan around.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the lookup key, followed by the return contents. Nothing is padded and no sentence is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully covers what is returned, which is the main gap it had to fill. It falls short only on the optional pack parameter and on relating itself to the sibling discovery tools.
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% and the schema itself explains that 'name' should match what search_models returns. The description only gestures at 'by name' and says nothing about the optional pack disambiguator, so it stays at the baseline rather than adding meaning.
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?
Names the resource and key precisely: 'One model by name', and then enumerates exactly what comes back (.glb URL, clip names, pack, licence, three.js snippet). The singular 'one model' contrasts adequately with search_models and list_packs without needing to name them.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an exact-name lookup, with search_models presumably used to discover names first. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative named, so the agent must infer the routing from the singular phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Every free Gobkit pack: name, kind, how many models, the clip names, the zip with all of them and the cover picture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is the complete set of free packs and lists the returned fields, which gives useful shape information, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or whether premium packs are silently excluded.
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?
A single compact sentence with no filler, and the scope ('every free Gobkit pack') is front-loaded ahead of the return-field enumeration. It reads as a fragment rather than a statement of action, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so item by item: name, kind, model count, clip names, zip, cover picture. The only gap is the absence of any note on result volume or pagination for a potentially large listing.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter explanation is required. The description correctly avoids inventing options that the schema does not support.
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 names the resource precisely ('every free Gobkit pack') and enumerates what each entry contains, so an agent knows this is a collection-list tool rather than a single-item fetch. It implies the list verb via the scope statement rather than stating it explicitly, and it never names how it differs from get_model or search_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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use signal, no mention of the sibling tools, and no statement about whether filtering or pagination is possible. The only implicit guidance is the word 'every', which hints the result is unfiltered, leaving the agent to infer routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search Gobkit's free CC0 low-poly 3D models (.glb). Rigged models carry named animation clips (idle, walk, attack, death …) — play them by name. Returns each model's direct .glb URL. Leave query empty to list everything of a kind.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Only this kind of model. | |
| limit | No | How many results at most (default 30). | |
| query | No | Words to look for in the model or pack name, e.g. 'shark', 'cashier', 'tree', 'trex'. | |
| animated | No | true = only rigged models with animation clips; false = only static props. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and closed-world, so the description adds domain behavior instead: CC0 licensing, .glb format, rigged models exposing named animation clips, and that results include direct asset URLs. This is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields; only rate-limit/pagination behavior is absent.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and the most useful operational hints; no filler or repetition of schema text.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description covers the essential return shape (direct .glb URL per model) plus animation-clip semantics. Adequate for a zero-required-param read tool; only result-ordering/pagination details are unstated.
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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the empty-query semantics ('leave query empty to list everything of a kind'); it says nothing extra about kind, limit, or animated beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource — searching Gobkit's free CC0 low-poly .glb models — plus the distinguishing traits (rigged/animated vs static, direct URL returns). An agent can distinguish this from get_model (single fetch) and list_packs (pack listing) without opening any schema.
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?
Gives a concrete operational rule: leave query empty to list everything of a kind, and use named animation clips on rigged models. It does not explicitly name when to prefer get_model or list_packs, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_modellist_packssearch_modelsSearch and download free CC0 GLB models and game packs, and submit new ones on a user behalf.
Low-poly 3D models and kits for three.js and game engines: search, match, remix, preview.
Free text/image → 3D: generate, rig, avatar-ify, and refine GLB models. No auth, no payment.
Low-poly 3D assets as code for three.js, Godot, Unity: IK walkers, rolling vehicles, hinged doors.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
