3D New Era AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search the furniture catalog

catalog

Read-only

Find items with dimensions and front orientation for your plan, or list what the project already uses to match new pieces.

Instructions

Find catalog items: rows [id,name,w,d,h,front?] in cm. front, when the item has one, is wall|free <front>/<back>: every model is built with that front on its local +y (at angle 0 it looks down the plan), wall means its back belongs on a wall (bed headboard, wardrobe back, toilet cistern) and free that it stands anywhere (armchair, chair); no front means any angle is right. scope=project lists what this plan already uses instead — catalog id or imported model, with how many there are and one id to copy from, narrowed by q over the entry and its pieces' names — which is how a new piece matches the drawing rather than reintroducing a generic one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Search words (Portuguese or English), e.g. `cama casal`
`cat`	No	Category id, e.g. `kitchen`
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 40)
`scope`	No	`project` lists what this plan already uses — imported models included — instead of the catalog, so a new piece can match what is there rather than reintroduce a generic one

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`more`	No
`used`	No
`items`	No
`categories`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv3.0.0Sep 30, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / categories / description
```
Removed value: -"Categories to search by, when neither q nor cat was given"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / items / description
```
Removed value: -"[id, name, w, d, h, front?] cm"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / more / description
```
Removed value: -"How many more matched than the limit"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / used / description
```
Removed value: -"scope=project: [kind, name, count, id]"
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the row schema, front/wall/free semantics, and that scope=project lists what the plan already uses. It stops short of return format (though an output schema exists) or pagination behavior.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is one massive run-on sentence with dense domain jargon (front semantics, +y local axis, plan angles) that could be separated. It is not front-loaded—the actual search purpose is buried at the start but the rest rambles into row formatting. Structure is poor despite conveying information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it does provide meaningful domain context about the front field. However, it omits guidance on how to search effectively (e.g., combining q and cat) and does not clarify the relationship to the project scope alternative. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description adds interpretation of row structure and the semantics of the 'front' field, which is not in the schema, but does not add per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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's opening 'Find catalog items' does state the verb and resource, and the schema covers search parameters. However, the bulk of the text describes row format, front semantics, and the project scope mode rather than distinguishing this catalog search from siblings like 'library', 'place', or 'edit_library'. Compared to a 5 that names the specific sibling it is not, this is adequate but not distinguishing.

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?

The description mentions scope=project behavior but never states when to use catalog search versus library/edit_library or place. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling search/placement tools. Usage context is implied by the 'scope=project' mention but not framed as guidance.

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