Skip to main content
Glama

cineflow_models_catalog

Lists model weights with direct download links, file sizes, target directories, and curl commands, filtered by mirror or VRAM profile.

Instructions

List models and weights with direct download links (HuggingFace, hf-mirror, ModelScope), file sizes, target directories, and curl commands.

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": "cineflow_models_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mirrorNoMirror to construct URLs for.
profileNoFilter by hardware VRAM profile (e.g. 'rtx_24gb', 'rtx_16gb').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what comes back: links per mirror, file sizes, target directories, and ready-made curl commands. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether auth/network is required, or what happens when the optional filters are omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the returned fields without filler. The parenthetical mirror list is slightly redundant with the schema enum but earns its place by signaling multi-mirror URL construction.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-optional-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately describes the return shape. It falls short on default behavior with zero arguments and on routing to cineflow_download_model, which an agent needs to complete the task.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description only echoes the three mirror values in parentheses. It adds no meaning about the 'profile' VRAM filter or the default behavior when mirror/profile are unset, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List models and weights') and enumerates the payload (download links, file sizes, target directories, curl commands), which makes it clearly distinct from the sibling cineflow_download_model, a mutating download action. It never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred from the content rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the natural follow-up (cineflow_download_model) or how it relates to cineflow_nodes_catalog/workflows_catalog. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

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