List expert Three.js/WebGL recipes for glTF loading, KTX2 textures, instancing, LOD, scroll-scrub, bloom, and raycasting. Each entry provides IDs, titles, and keywords.
List expert, production-grade Three.js / WebGL recipes (glTF Draco/Meshopt loading, KTX2 texture compression, instancing & LOD, scroll-scrub, postprocessing bloom, raycasting). Returns ids, titles and keywords.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns ids, titles, and keywords, implying a read-only retrieval. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, nor does it mention ordering, pagination, or filtering behavior. It provides basic behavioral info but lacks depth.
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 main action front-loaded and the return fields clearly stated. The parenthetical examples add useful detail without bloat. Every word earns its place.
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 parameterless list tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool lists, the domain categories, and the exact return fields (ids, titles, keywords). There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from calling it correctly.
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 the description need not explain parameter semantics. It appropriately focuses on the return value. Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is warranted, and the description does not introduce any ambiguity.
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 states the action (list) and the resource (expert, production-grade Three.js/WebGL recipes) with specific examples of recipe categories. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_threejs_recipe (which likely fetches a single recipe) and list_templates (which lists templates) by explicitly focusing on recipes.
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 implies usage for listing recipes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or direct the agent to get_threejs_recipe for a single recipe. The context is clear but not explicit about selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.