A
licenseB
qualityB
maintenanceUnifies Roblox Studio, Unity, Unreal Engine, and Blender into a single AI-powered control plane with 78 tools for automated game development.
78
AGPL 3.0
StackFiesta
Server Details
Discover AI tools for game development — 100+ tools indexed by engine, task, and pricing.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- stackfiesta/stackfiesta-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 2
- Server Listing
- StackFiesta MCP Server
Available Tools
7 toolscompare_toolsBInspect
Side-by-side comparison of two AI tools including pricing, features, and key differentiators.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | First tool slug | |
| b | Yes | Second tool slug |
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions what is included (pricing, features, differentiators) but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as return format, data source, order, or any restrictions. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that could have varied behavior.
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?
A single sentence that is direct and without any fluff. Every word contributes meaning, and the purpose is immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the comparison output looks like (e.g., table, list, pros/cons). It does not, leaving the agent guessing about the result format. For a utility tool with this complexity, the description is incomplete.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (a and b). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description explicitly says 'Side-by-side comparison of two AI tools including pricing, features, and key differentiators,' clearly stating the verb (compare), resource (two AI tools), and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool (single tool) and get_trending (trending tools).
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 implies the tool is for comparing two tools, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_tool for single tool details. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
exploreAInspect
Open-ended discovery of AI tools for game development. Returns grouped approaches with tradeoffs. Use for greenfield/exploratory queries.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query describing what the user needs | |
| context | No | Optional context to nudge ranking (never a hard filter) |
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions returning grouped approaches with tradeoffs, but lacks details on side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The behavior is adequately described but not highly transparent.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that cover the tool's purpose and usage context with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description could provide more detail on the return format (e.g., what grouped approaches look like, pagination). It is adequate but incomplete for a tool returning complex nested structures.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'context' parameter as a nudge that never hard-filters, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.
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 the tool's function: open-ended discovery of AI tools for game development, returning grouped approaches with tradeoffs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_tool or compare_tools by specifying greenfield/exploratory queries.
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?
The description explicitly indicates when to use this tool ('use for greenfield/exploratory queries'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for specific lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_collectionAInspect
Get full detail for a curated collection including all tools inside.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Collection slug |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description implies read operation but doesn't disclose side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. Bare minimum for a simple get operation.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted 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?
Adequate for a simple one-param tool with no output schema. Description explains what the result includes, missing only potential output format or error cases.
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 covers slug parameter (100%), description mentions 'full detail including tools inside' but adds no extra semantic meaning for the parameter beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get full detail for a curated collection including all tools inside,' specifying verb (get) and resource (collection detail). Distinguishes from siblings like get_tool (single tool) and list_collections (list only).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., compare_tools, explore). No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_toolAInspect
Full detail for a specific AI tool by slug. Returns description, links, pricing, similar tools.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Tool slug (e.g. unity-mcp, meshy) |
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return components, but does not mention behavior on missing slug, error handling, or side effects. For a simple read tool, the description is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and return values with no superfluous words. Ideal conciseness.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and how it is invoked. Minor omissions like not-found behavior are not critical for this low-complexity tool.
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 coverage for the single slug parameter is 100%, with a clear description and examples. The tool description adds only 'by slug' which is already implicit in the schema, providing no meaningful extra semantics.
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 the tool retrieves full details for a specific AI tool by slug, listing return contents (description, links, pricing, similar tools). This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_tools or explore, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies use for single-tool lookups via slug, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. Since siblings like compare_tools or get_trending suggest different use cases, some guidance is inherent but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_trendingAInspect
Trending/popular AI tools by velocity (stars growth, saves, updates).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days (default 7) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 24) |
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains sorting criteria but omits details like return format, pagination, or required authentication. It is partially transparent.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no superfluous words, achieving maximum efficiency.
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?
Given the simple tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps about return structure and edge cases.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 it returns trending/popular AI tools sorted by velocity (stars growth, saves, updates), distinguishing it from sibling tools like explore or get_tool.
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 implies usage for getting trending tools but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like explore or compare_tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_collectionsAInspect
List curated tool collections available on StackFiesta.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or whether the list includes full details or just names. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but adds minimal behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the purpose without extraneous information, achieving high conciseness.
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?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return format (e.g., list of names, objects, metadata). It meets the minimum but could be more informative.
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?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description adds context by specifying that the collections are 'curated' and 'available on StackFiesta', which clarifies the scope.
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 the action (List) and the resource (curated tool collections), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_collection' which likely returns a single collection.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_collection' or 'explore'. The description assumes the agent will infer from the verb, but no criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_toolsAInspect
Precise shortlist of 3-5 tools with why_this_fits reasoning. Requires context — this is for 'I know my stack, give me the right tool' queries.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What the user needs to accomplish | |
| context | Yes |
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals the tool returns a shortlist with reasoning, which is the key behavioral aspect. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it could be improved by explicitly stating it is read-only and does not modify data, but the stated behavior is clear and sufficient.
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 sentences: the first immediately states the tool's core function, the second adds usage context. No filler, perfectly front-loaded.
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?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and nested parameters. The description is minimal; it does not explain how tools are selected, error cases, or the domain of tools. It provides enough to use but not full completeness.
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?
The schema covers both parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds context for the 'context' parameter by tying it to the usage scenario. The added value is marginal, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 50% schema coverage.
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 the tool provides a precise shortlist of 3-5 tools with reasoning, and distinguishes itself for 'I know my stack, give me the right tool' queries. This specific verb and output differentiate it from sibling tools like compare_tools or get_tool.
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?
The description specifies that context is required and targets users who know their stack, giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
8 tool updates
- Added
compare_tools - Added
explore - Removed
find_tools - Added
get_collection - Changed
get_tool4 fields changed- removed
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#" - removed
Input schema / properties / contextRemoved value: -{ - "description": "Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"", - "type": "string" -} - changed
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"URL slug of the tool (e.g. unity-mcp, meshy)"New value: +"Tool slug (e.g. unity-mcp, meshy)" - changed
Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[ - "slug", - "context" -]New value: +[ + "slug" +]
- Added
get_trending - Added
list_collections - Added
resolve_tools
2 tool updates
- Changed
find_tools3 fields changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false - added
Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{ + "description": "Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"", + "type": "string" +} - changed
Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[ - "query" -]New value: +[ + "query", + "context" +]
- Changed
get_tool3 fields changed- removed
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -false - added
Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{ + "description": "Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"", + "type": "string" +} - changed
Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[ - "slug" -]New value: +[ + "slug", + "context" +]
2 tool updates
- First observed
find_tools - First observed
get_tool
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Generate game assets with AI: sprites, 3D models, animations, sound effects, music, and voices.
Generate game assets with AI for 2D games, including sprites, tilesets, and animations.
Search 2,000+ AI tools: pricing, alternatives, comparisons, and live, dead or acquired status.
Search, compare, and find alternatives across a catalog of 3,064 AI tools.
513
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceSearch and discover 500+ tools, APIs, and services for AI agents. Browse 15 categories, get recommendations, and access structured metadata including auth methods, free tiers, and example calls.1-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to build and manage Unity projects directly through the Unity Editor, providing 150+ tools for scene creation, script generation, play mode control, input simulation, and performance analysis.1MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables generating game assets from natural language prompts, including sprite sheets, animations, voiceover, sound effects, chiptune music, tilesets, backgrounds, VFX, and cohesive asset packs with shared style and audio DSP presets.-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: comparing, exploring, getting details, trending, listing, and resolving. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compare_tools, get_tool, list_collections). Even 'explore' is a single verb, fitting the pattern.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is well-scoped for a tool discovery server, covering browsing, details, comparison, and recommendations without being overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
Covers most discovery needs (browse, trend, compare, detail) but lacks a general search tool or filtering by features, a minor gap.