Skip to main content
Glama

Ludo AI Game Assets

by ai.ludo

create3DModel

Convert a single source image into a textured 3D model (image-to-3D). The job result is a downloadable GLB model_url plus an array of snapshot image URLs rendered from different angles (handy for previews). Accepts optional mesh controls: target_num_faces (max triangle count, 1000-200000, default 50000), texture_size (1024 or 2048, default 2048), and texture_type ("pbr", "simple", or "none", default "pbr"). Credits are charged only on success. Pass an optional request_id to tag the result so you can locate it later via GET /assets/3d-models/results. Requires an API key (user scope). Returns 202 with a job id immediately; poll getApiJob (pass wait: 30) until status is succeeded, then read its result field, which is exactly the response documented for this operation. Each account may have up to 50 generations queued or running at once; beyond that submissions return 429 (PENDING_JOBS_LIMIT) - wait for jobs to finish.

Credits: This endpoint consumes 3 credits per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestBodyYes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency, and it is excellent. It discloses asynchronous 202 behavior, polling requirements, idempotent request_id behavior, account concurrency limits, 429 errors, credit charging only on success, and API key requirements. This goes far beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads purpose and output, then walks through parameters, async workflow, limits, and credits in a logical order. The structure makes a complex asynchronous tool understandable without unnecessary filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent the result shape, how to poll for completion, where to find results later, what limits apply, and how credits are charged. An agent has enough to invoke and monitor the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains target_num_faces ranges and defaults, texture_size accepted values, texture_type options, and request_id behavior including tagging and idempotency. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Convert a single source image into a textured 3D model (image-to-3D).' It clarifies the deliverable as a GLB model plus preview snapshots, which clearly separates it from image-generation, animation, and rigging siblings.

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 clearly defines the use case (image-to-3D) and provides strong operational context: async job submission, polling via getApiJob, rate limits, and credit cost. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like animate3DModel or rigModel, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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

All Ludo AI Game Assets toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools pair a clear action and asset type (create3DModel, editVideo, removeBackground), and overlapping pairs such as animateSprite vs transferMotion vs animateSpriteKeyframes are carefully differentiated by input mode. The main friction is listApiJobs vs listGenerations, which both return generation history from slightly different scopes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is overwhelmingly consistent camelCase verb+noun (create*, edit*, list*, animate*, cancel*), with only minor deviations like generatePose/generateWithStyle alongside createImage and the slightly awkward validateApiKeyEndpoint. There is no chaotic mixing of conventions.

Tool Count2/5

At 31 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many', even though the multimodal game-asset scope explains much of the breadth. Agents face a large selection surface with many generation variants across 3D, sprites, images, audio, and video.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: image-to-3D plus rigging and animation, sprite pose/rotation/animation/editing, image create/edit/style/background-removal, video create/edit/upscale, and audio SFX/ambiance/music/voice. Minor gaps remain, such as no image upscaler and no individual asset retrieval or deletion.

Resources