Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
prompt-to-scene

prompt-to-scene

by 316sandon12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

edit_imported_part

Modify parts of an imported static 3D model by grouping members, changing transform or material values, locking geometry/materials, or swapping in a local replacement file.

Instructions

Group, edit, lock or replace parts of an imported static model.

inspect_asset.report.parts lists source parts. members groups existing named parts into part. Changes: scale/offset/rotation XYZ in Blender Z-up, linear color RGB, roughness, metallic. replacement_path is a local GLB/glTF/FBX/BLEND fitted to the chosen part bounds. Unlock explicitly before changes. Untouched parts and engine instances retain identity. A single fused mesh is one part: this tool does not invent semantic segmentation.

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": {
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>",
      "part": "<part>"
    },
    "name": "edit_imported_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partYes
changesNo
membersNo
asset_idYes
lock_geometryNo
lock_materialNo
replacement_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it warns of the unlock prerequisite, states that untouched parts and engine instances retain identity, and sets expectations that a fused mesh is one part with no invented segmentation. It omits reversibility of locking and any rate/permission details.

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?

Front-loads the action, then layers constraints and caveats in short declarative lines. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; a minor tightening of the naming/grouping paragraph is possible.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies prerequisites, field semantics, replacement format constraints, and identity-preservation guarantees. Missing only explicit return/response behavior and lock/unlock reversal details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: changes are defined as scale/offset/rotation XYZ in Blender Z-up plus linear color RGB, roughness and metallic; replacement_path is constrained to local GLB/glTF/FBX/BLEND fitted to part bounds; part/members semantics are explained. lock_geometry and lock_material are only implied by 'lock' and 'Unlock explicitly', leaving a small gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb set (group, edit, lock, replace) and a precise resource ('parts of an imported static model'), which separates it from edit_prop_part/edit_selected_prop by scope. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete operational context: inspect_asset.report.parts lists source parts, members groups existing named parts, and geometry/material must be unlocked explicitly before changes. No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling routing, so not a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools