Skip to main content
Glama

3DLogo.io

by io.github.cottom

List logo materials

list_materials
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when you need a material id: the presets the 3D logo editor renders (chrome, gold, glass, holographic, neon, clay, wood...), each with its category and whether it needs Pro. Ids are exact strings for build_logo_editor_link, create_text_logo_project and update_project_style. Do not use to show the user what a look is like; browse_looks has example images.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryNoOnly this category

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialsYes
categoriesYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the output fields (category, Pro requirement) and the exact-string nature of IDs for downstream tool calls. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. The main use case is stated first, followed by downstream integration details, and the exclusion/alternative is clearly separated. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional enum parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers when to use it, what data it returns, and what it should not be used for. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the only parameter, category, is fully documented with an enum and its own description. The tool description confirms categories are part of the returned data but does not explicitly explain the filtering behavior of the category parameter; still, the schema carries the weight.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving material IDs for the 3D logo editor, including presets like chrome and gold, with category and Pro-requirement details. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling browse_looks by explaining what it is not for.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when you need a material id') and when not to use it ('Do not use to show the user what a look is like'), naming browse_looks as the alternative. It also explains how the IDs connect to other tools, giving agents actionable routing guidance.

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

All 3DLogo.io 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources, but several overlapping pairs exist: search/list_projects both find projects by title, fetch/get_project both return project details, and upload_logo_image/request_logo_image_upload are two upload paths. The descriptions help clarify boundaries, but an agent could still misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_). Minor deviations like bare 'fetch' and 'search', plus the mixed '3d' in generate_3d_model vs '3D' in descriptions, keep it from being perfectly consistent.

Tool Count2/5

At 31 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where agent tool selection becomes cognitively heavy. While the server covers a broad platform, several tools are near-redundant and could be consolidated, making the count feel inflated.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers project lifecycle, sharing/publishing, AI generation, uploads, materials, and account/plan management quite thoroughly. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct create_coin_project tool and no deletion for generation runs, but these are workable.

Resources