Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MetaModel MCP Server

MetaModel MCP Server

Official
by metamodel-app
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

metamodel_list_projects

Read-only

Find available calculators and engineering models on MetaModel, returning project names, descriptions, tokens, and model names.

Instructions

Browse available MetaModel calculators and engineering models. Returns project names, descriptions, tokens, and model names for each published project.

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": "metamodel_list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact return contents (project names, descriptions, tokens, model names), which is behavioral information not covered by annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first clearly states the action, the second lists the return fields. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and returns. It could mention that it's a safe read operation, but that is covered by annotations. Overall complete for a simple list tool.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params), so by the baseline rule, the score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist.

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 uses a specific verb 'Browse' combined with a clear resource 'MetaModel calculators and engineering models', and lists the return fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings, which are about getting schema and computing.

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?

The description implicitly suggests use before other tools to see available projects, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to. It lacks direct comparison to siblings or exclusions.

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