3DLogo.io

Upload a logo image

upload_logo_image

Idempotent

Stores a logo image (PNG, JPEG, GIF, WebP up to 8 MB; SVG up to 1 MB) so the 3D logo editor can extrude it, and returns a mark id plus an editor link already styled. Give exactly one source: image (a file the user attached in chat), image_url (a public https link to the image file itself, not a page), or image_data (a base64 data URL, small files only). Marks expire after 7 days. For a file on the user's own machine use request_logo_image_upload instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`depth`	No	Extrusion depth, default 30
`image`	No	The image the user attached in chat
`motion`	No
`material`	No	Material id from list_materials (e.g. gold-clean-optimised)
`file_name`	No	Shown in the editor; defaults to the file name
`image_url`	No	Public https URL of the image file
`background`	No	Hex colour, e.g. #1a1a1a
`image_data`	No	data:image/png;base64,... for small images only; most hosts cap this well under 1 MB
`environment`	No	Lighting room

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bytes`	Yes
`markId`	Yes
`fileName`	Yes
`material`	Yes
`editorUrl`	Yes	Absolute https URL the user can open
`expiresAt`	Yes
`contentType`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 6, 2026

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"

removedOutput schema / properties / material / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / material / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses file type/size limits, the 7-day mark expiry, and the return payload (mark id plus editor link). It also warns that image_url must point to the image file itself, not a page. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences with no filler; the core purpose and constraints are front-loaded, and the alternative-tool pointer is placed at the end without diluting the main instruction. Every sentence adds information.

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 9-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what is stored, what is returned, size limits, expiry, source selection, and the alternative for local files. Remaining parameter details are already present in the input schema.

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?

Schema coverage is high (89%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the critical 'exactly one source' constraint, the small-files-only caveat for image_data, and the public-https requirement for image_url, which materially improves correct invocation.

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 ('Stores a logo image') and states the outcome ('returns a mark id plus an editor link already styled'). It also separates itself from request_logo_image_upload, so an agent can distinguish this upload path from the local-file alternative.

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 states the selection rule explicitly — 'Give exactly one source: image, image_url, or image_data' — and defines when each is appropriate, including 'small files only' for base64. It also names the sibling for local-machine files (request_logo_image_upload), giving clear when-to-use-versus-alternative 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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?