Skip to main content
Glama

list_models

List every object currently stored in the scanbim-models OSS bucket, with URN, size in MB, and a viewer URL for each. Returns the raw OSS inventory, not the D1 models table, so freshly uploaded items appear immediately. When to use: you need to enumerate previously uploaded models to find a URN, show an inventory, or pick one for a follow-up tool call. When NOT to use: you already know the exact URN — call get_model_metadata directly. This tool is not a search; it returns up to the OSS default page (typically first 10 objects unless OSS paginates). APS scopes: bucket:read data:read Rate limits: APS default ~50 req/min per app per endpoint; Model Derivative translation jobs ~60 req/min; OSS uploads size-limited per file to 100MB for direct upload, larger via resumable. Errors: 401 APS token expired/invalid — refresh; 403 scope or resource permission denied; 404 bucket not found — no models have been uploaded yet (upload one first); 429 rate limited — backoff and retry; 5xx APS upstream outage — retry with jitter. Side effects: READ-ONLY. Idempotent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoReserved for future filtering by file extension (e.g. 'rvt', 'ifc'). Currently informational only; the OSS listing is not filtered by this value.
project_nameNoReserved for future filtering by the D1 project_name column. Currently informational only; the OSS listing is not filtered by this value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Added value: +"Reserved for future filtering by file extension (e.g. 'rvt', 'ifc'). Currently informational only; the OSS listing is not filtered by this value."
    • addedInput schema / properties / format / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "rvt"
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_name / description
      Added value: +"Reserved for future filtering by the D1 project_name column. Currently informational only; the OSS listing is not filtered by this value."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_name / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "1200 Main St - Tower A"
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses read-only and idempotent behavior, pagination limits, scopes, rate limits, and detailed error semantics. This goes far beyond what structured annotations would typically provide.

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?

While lengthy, every section earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, exclusions, scopes, rate limits, errors, and side effects. The structure is front-loaded with a crisp first sentence and organized with clear paragraph breaks, maximizing information density without waste.

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 the tool's simplicity (no output schema, minimal params), the description is fully complete for an agent: it covers pagination, error handling, auth scopes, and the relationship to other tools. No critical operational context is missing.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the crucial note that they are 'informational only' and do not filter results. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema handles semantic burden adequately.

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?

Clearly states 'List every object currently stored in the scanbim-models OSS bucket' with specific output fields (URN, size, viewer URL). It explicitly contrasts with the D1 models table and distinguishes itself from sibling get_model_metadata, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, naming a concrete alternative (get_model_metadata) and clarifying that it is not a search and returns paginated results. This is exemplary guidance for tool selection.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain with clear prefixes (acc_, xr_, get_) and each has a distinct purpose. The only potential confusion is between lumion_render and twinmotion_render, but descriptions clarify the aesthetic difference. Overall, tools are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow consistent patterns: acc_* for ACC operations, get_* for metadata retrieval, and xr_launch_*/xr_list_* for XR sessions. Minor deviations like list_models instead of get_models and render tools using software names as prefixes are readable and do not hinder pattern recognition.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal range but justified by the server's broad scope covering ACC, model translation, clash detection, rendering, and XR. Some render tools are stubs and could be trimmed, but they are clearly marked as roadmap items.

Completeness3/5

The set covers upload→translate→view→clash-detect→create issues/RFIs workflows well, but lacks update/delete operations for issues and RFIs, and there is no full-detail retrieval for a single issue or RFI. These gaps can cause workflow dead ends for closeout and status changes.

Resources