GripForge

Generate a modular armor kit

gripforge_armor_generate

Queue a durable armor-kit job: one shared concept, isolated Imagine references, Meshy PBR models, bounded Blender interior preparation and paired GLB exports, then actual GripForge wearer review. Types: helmet, chest, belt, pauldron, bracer, glove, thigh, greave, boot, upperarm, gorget, tasset, undersuit. coverage=full adds a durable anatomical decomposition of the concept, rejects missing planned roles before mesh generation and records per-instance coverage fits. A piece count alone never proves body coverage. The optional undersuit is a locally manufactured adaptive textile which retains each wearer’s skin weights. Meshy pieces cost 11 credits per canonical type; the textile has no image/mesh charge. A new concept costs 1 credit; mirrors are included. concept_item must be an owned Library image. source_kit + explicit pieces regenerates only those types into a NEW work kit and pins unchanged pieces. Closing the call/page does not cancel. Poll gripforge_generation_read. Success is a work version, never automatic visual approval. The result includes a Grip Studio link, review scene, concepts, source models and Blender source.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "gripforge_armor_generate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`pieces`	No
`prompt`	Yes
`coverage`	No
`polycount`	No
`source_kit`	No
`concept_item`	No
`workspace_id`	No	Workspace authorized by the current key. Returned scene links open this workspace.
`textile_color`	No
`character_items`	No
`idempotency_key`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse boolean annotations, the description discloses queuing semantics, credit costs, ownership requirements, the fact that closing the page does not cancel, the lack of automatic visual approval, and the exact result contents. There is no contradiction with the annotations; the description carries the behavioral burden and does so thoroughly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but dense, and nearly every sentence adds operational value: lifecycle, costs, constraints, polling, and result contents are all present. It is front-loaded with the core action and pipeline summary, though some phrases like 'bounded Blender interior preparation' and 'durable anatomical decomposition' are jargon-heavy and slightly obscure.

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?

For a complex asynchronous job with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, costs, failure-relevant constraints, polling requirement, and what the success result includes. It is not fully complete because some parameters and explicit sibling differentiation are missing, but it provides enough for an agent to call the tool and interpret the outcome in most 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 description coverage is only 9%, so the description must compensate, and it does clarify the most decision-critical parameters: coverage=full, source_kit+pieces, concept_item, and the undersuit/textile costs. However, several parameters such as polycount, character_items, textile_color, and idempotency_key remain unexplained by either the schema or the description.

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 clear action ('Queue a durable armor-kit job') and details the full pipeline, making the resource and behavior unmistakable. The enumerated armor types and the distinction from generic generation tools separate it from gripforge_generate and the weapon/prop/character 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 gives clear contextual guidance: how coverage=full behaves, what source_kit+pieces does, that concept_item must be owned, and that callers must poll gripforge_generation_read. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to choose this over other generators, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All GripForge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.