Skip to main content
Glama

3DAssets.dev

Submit asset from URL

submit_asset_from_url

Submit a .glb hosted at a public https URL on the user’s behalf (requires their API key). We download it, validate and re-encode it, then a human reviews it before publishing. CC0 is automatic, but the user must accept its irrevocable dedication before submission. Max 25 MB, 1M triangles, embedded textures only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
tagsNo
titleYes
aiModelNoContributor-reported model ID or custom model/tool name; use list_ai_models for suggestions. Omit if unknown.
licenseNoFixed CC0 1.0 Universal dedication; no licence selectioncc0-1.0
summaryYesPlain 1–2 sentence description
categoryYesFrom list_categories
sourceUrlNoWhere the original was first published
aiGeneratedNoAI helped create geometry, code or textures; not merely uploading
attestationYesRequired contributor acceptance (including for agent submissions): I confirm that I created this asset or hold the rights to publish it under CC0 1.0 Universal, and agree to dedicate it to the public domain under CC0 so anyone can use, modify and redistribute it for personal or commercial purposes without attribution. I understand this dedication is irrevocable and the asset will be reviewed before publishing.
descriptionNoMarkdown: scale, pivot, what is included

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key side effects: downloading the asset, validating and re-encoding it, requiring CC0 acceptance, and deferring publication until human review. It does not discuss potential failure modes or async responses, but it clearly communicates the submission lifecycle and irrevocable dedication requirement.

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 compact and focused, conveying the entire submission workflow and key constraints in three sentences. No redundant or irrelevant information is included, and the structure flows logically from action to process to requirements.

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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to understand the full submission process: source URL, technical requirements, license implications, API key requirement, and the human review step before publication. It is complete given the schema already documents individual parameters and there is no output schema to describe.

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?

While individual parameters are mostly documented in the schema, the description adds important global constraints not present in the schema: 25 MB max size, 1 million triangle limit, embedded textures only, and the need for a public https URL. This supplements the schema meaningfully, though it does not detail each parameter individually.

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 submits a .glb file from a public https URL on the user's behalf, distinguishing it from pack submission and other asset operations. It also specifies the validation, re-encoding, review, and publishing workflow, making the tool's 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use the tool: for submitting .glb assets from a URL, with requirements like public https URL, API key, size limits, and embedded textures. It could more explicitly contrast with sibling tools like submit_pack, but the .glb-specific scope and constraints provide clear practical guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.