Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Daz3D-MCP

Daz3D-MCP

by MictlanLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

content_libraries

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists Daz content libraries and reports how many files the search index contains, with an option to refresh and rebuild the index.

Instructions

Lists the user's Daz content libraries (My Library, My DAZ 3D Library...) and how many content files the search index holds.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "content_libraries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refreshNoAsk Daz again and rebuild the file index.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context by mentioning the search index, but it omits that the optional refresh flag triggers a rebuild of that index — a side effect with cost/latency implications left only to the schema to disclose.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return content stated immediately after. The parenthetical example library names help ground the concept without bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-required-parameter read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, little more is needed. The main residual gap is not explaining what the returned structure looks like or that an empty index is a valid result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single refresh parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its rebuild behavior. The description says nothing about the parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (Lists), a specific resource (Daz content libraries), and even the payload (per-library content file counts). It is clear enough to separate from siblings like content_add_library or content_search, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery/diagnostic step before content_search, since it reports index contents. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of content_add_library for adding a library, and no stated prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools