Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Foldline

Foldline

by alireza12t
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Find film styles

find_styles
Read-only

Search 66 film styles by name, category, use, or demo film to identify suitable animation styles; returns one concise line per match, and an empty query lists all styles.

Instructions

Search the 66 film styles by words (name, category, use, demo film). Returns one short line per style. Leave query empty to list all.

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": "find_styles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoWords to match, e.g. "paper", "news", "3d", "kids".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world safety, so the description's job is to add operational context, which it does: the corpus size (66), which fields are matched, and that results are one short line per style. The remaining gap is result ordering or any cap on returned lines.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and corpus, followed by the return format and the empty-query escape hatch. No redundant or filler wording.

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-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what is searched, what comes back, and the zero-arg case. Only minor details like result ordering are absent, and no output schema exists to carry them.

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 coverage is 100% and the query parameter is already documented with examples, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: what the query is matched against (name, category, use, demo film) and that an empty query returns the full list.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search the 66 film styles') plus the indexed fields (name, category, use, demo film), so an agent knows exactly what is being searched. It stops short of differentiating from the sibling get_style tool, which likely returns full style detail rather than one-line summaries.

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?

'Leave query empty to list all' is a concrete usage rule for the optional parameter, which is real guidance. However, there is no statement of when to search here versus fetching a single style via get_style, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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