Apply a downloaded Polyhaven texture to a 3D object by specifying the object name and texture ID.
Apply a previously downloaded Polyhaven texture to an object.
Parameters:
- object_name: Name of the object to apply the texture to
- texture_id: ID of the Polyhaven texture to apply (must be downloaded first)
Returns a message indicating success or failure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| texture_id | Yes | ||
| object_name | Yes | ||
| user_prompt | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says it applies a texture and returns a message. It fails to disclose behavior for the optional 'user_prompt' parameter, effects on existing textures, or required conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief, front-loaded with purpose, and lists parameters. No unnecessary sentences, though structure could be improved by grouping related info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple apply tool, description covers purpose, required inputs, and return value. However, it fails to mention the optional parameter and doesn't clarify object existence assumptions, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains two required parameters but completely omits the optional 'user_prompt' parameter, partially compensating for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'apply', resource 'texture', and context 'to an object'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on downloading or generating assets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies prerequisite (texture must be downloaded first) but does not explicitly say when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No guidance on selecting this tool over similar ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AaronBrunckhurst/blender-mcp-2.79'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server