Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
polyhaven-mcp

polyhaven-mcp

by RN0000
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_categories

Retrieve available categories for a specified asset type, such as HDRIs, textures, or models. Optionally filter results by providing a comma-separated list of categories.

Instructions

A list of available categories for a specific asset type.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "get_categories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inNoA comma-separated list of categories to filter by.
typeYesThe asset type (hdris/textures/models/all).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the bare description ('a list of available categories') does not disclose behavior such as error handling, return format, or whether the 'in' filter is inclusive/exclusive. Minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is concise but lacks necessary detail; not a model of conciseness as it sacrifices completeness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values (e.g., list of strings or objects) and behavior. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no meaning beyond the schema; 'type' is implied but not elaborated, and 'in' is not mentioned at all.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a list of categories for a given asset type, distinguishing it from siblings like get_asset_types (which returns asset types) and search_assets (which searches assets).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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