Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HullForge MCP Connector

HullForge MCP Connector

by jigwright
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Search Tools

hf_search_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find the right HullForge tool by describing a task in plain words; returns matches with area, access type, and required arguments, filterable by area or kind.

Instructions

Find HullForge tools for a task, by what they do. Describe the task in plain words ("hide an actor in game", "add a keyframe to a level sequence"). Returns the best matches with their area, whether they read, write or destroy, and their required arguments. Give only 'area' to list every tool in that area; give nothing to list the areas. Next: hf_tool_schema.

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": "hf_search_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNoOptional. Search or list within one area, e.g. Sequencer.
kindNoOptional. Only tools that read, write or destroy.
limitNo
queryNoWhat you want to do, in plain words. Tool names work too.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the return contents (area, read/write/destroy classification, required arguments) and the three degenerate calling modes. It does not mention ranking/limit behavior or that limit defaults to 8, which would be the remaining useful disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then example queries in parentheses, then the degenerate modes, then the next step - four short units with no filler. The "Next: hf_tool_schema" line earns its place by establishing the chaining contract.

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 four-param, zero-required discovery tool with no output schema, the description carries its weight: purpose, input modes, and result shape are all present. It stops short of describing what each returned match actually contains (argument types, matching metadata), so an agent still learns those only from the response.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 75%, but the description supplies the meaning the schema cannot express: what happens with zero arguments (list the areas), what area-only does (list every tool in that area), and that query accepts plain words or tool names. Those are real calling-mode semantics, not a restatement of field descriptions.

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?

"Find HullForge tools for a task, by what they do" is a specific verb plus resource with the discovery scope stated outright, and the closing "Next: hf_tool_schema" positions it against the sibling it hands off to. An agent can tell this apart from the executor siblings (hf_read/hf_write/hf_destroy) without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It spells out three concrete input modes - plain-language query, area-only to enumerate one area's tools, and empty to list the areas - plus worked query examples, and directs the follow-up call to hf_tool_schema. What is missing is any when-not guidance, e.g. when hf_api_lookup would be the better entry point instead.

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