Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BitPull

BitPull

by SamuealPK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

bitpull_search_hub

Read-only

Search Hugging Face open models by query to find relevant models for a group to reuse or run.

Instructions

Search open models on Hugging Face for a group.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "bitpull_search_hub"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of result limits, pagination, whether it queries a remote API, or what a "group" scope means. For a remote-search tool this leaves meaningful behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, which is appropriately compact but also under-specified. The vague "for a group" clause consumes part of an already minimal description without adding usable information.

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?

A one-parameter read-only tool is simple, but with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should explain what query matches and what kind of results come back. Neither is provided, leaving the agent to guess how to form an effective query.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter "query" carries no documented meaning in either structured field or description. The description does not say whether query matches model names, authors, tasks, or tags, which the schema does not clarify either.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a verb and resource ("Search open models on Hugging Face"), which is understandable, but the trailing "for a group" is unexplained and muddies the scope. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as search_repos or bitpull_hub_files, which could plausibly also be searched.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_repos or bitpull_hub_files, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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