PicoBerry MCP Server

list_models

Instructions

List available generation engines/models and their credit cost for a category. Call this before generating instead of hardcoding engine names. Returns [{ name, label, cost, paidOnly, supportsMultiView, supportsUltraMode, ultraCost, ... }] — use name as the engine/model value. NOTE: the two 3D surfaces are SEPARATE catalogs — 3d is text-to-3D, image-to-3d is image-to-3D. An unrecognized category silently falls back to 3d, so a guessed value returns a plausible list that is missing image-only engines.

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": "list_models"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category`	No	`3d` lists TEXT-to-3D engines only. Engines whose vendor takes image input alone (e.g. meshy-7) have no text-to-3D row and appear ONLY under `image-to-3d` — use that before generate_3d_from_image.	3d

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.6Sep 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / category / description

Added value: +"`3d` lists TEXT-to-3D engines only. Engines whose vendor takes image input alone (e.g. meshy-7) have no text-to-3D row and appear ONLY under `image-to-3d` — use that before generate_3d_from_image."

changedInput schema / properties / category / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "3d",
-  "image",
-  "parts-board",
-  "remesh",
-  "texture",
-  "animate"
-]New value: +[
+  "3d",
+  "image-to-3d",
+  "image",
+  "parts-board",
+  "remesh",
+  "texture",
+  "animate",
+  "uv-unwrap"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.5Aug 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / category / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "3d",
-  "image",
-  "remesh",
-  "texture",
-  "animate"
-]New value: +[
+  "3d",
+  "image",
+  "parts-board",
+  "remesh",
+  "texture",
+  "animate"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait that would otherwise be invisible: 'An unrecognized category silently falls back to `3d`', so a guessed value returns a plausible list missing image-only engines. It also explains that the two 3D catalogs are separate. It stops short of explicitly stating the call has no side effects, but for a 'list' tool that is implied.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and instruction, then gives return-shape detail and ends with the critical warning. Each sentence earns its place, though the prose is slightly dense because it avoids bullet points. It is not bloated, but it packs a lot into a paragraph.

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 single-category listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call it, what the response looks like, and the important caveat about unrecognized categories. It does not document pagination or result limits, but these are not substantial for this simple tool design, so the completeness is solid but not perfect.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the enum already gives exhaustive options. The description adds non-obvious semantics beyond the schema by warning about the silent fallback and highlighting that `3d` and `image-to-3d` are independent catalogs. It also clarifies that the returned `name` is the value to send as the engine/model, which is useful for the output side of the tool.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List available generation engines/models and their credit cost for a category.' It differentiates itself from sibling generation tools by saying 'Call this before generating instead of hardcoding engine names.' This makes it evident how list_models is distinct from generate_image, generate_3d_from_text, and list_animation_presets.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use guidance appears both in the description ('Call this before generating instead of hardcoding engine names') and in the schema's category parameter description ('use that before generate_3d_from_image'). It tells the agent when to use the tool and which sibling alternative applies for image-to-3D, leaving no ambiguity about when to call it.

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

Deploy Server