Context3D MCP Server

Official

by Context3D

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
The tools are cleanly divided into two domains: 3D model generation (generate_model, check_status, download_model) and file system operations (create_directory, list_directory, read_file, write_file). Each tool has a distinct purpose with no overlap, making selection unambiguous.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (e.g., generate_model, check_status, list_directory). There are no deviations or mixed conventions, ensuring predictability.
Tool Count4/5
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable for a server that combines 3D model generation and auxiliary file operations. However, the file operations are slightly under-scoped (missing delete, rename), preventing a perfect score.
Completeness3/5
The 3D generation workflow (generate, check, download) is complete, but the file operations miss common actions like delete or rename. Additionally, the download_model tool's description is vague ('show file to browse'), leaving ambiguity about its exact functionality.
Average 3.2/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Tools from this server were used 1 time in the last 30 days.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this tool modifies state or requires authentication. It only says 'show file to browse', which is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified, sacrificing clarity. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is severely incomplete. The agent lacks critical information for correct invocation.
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%, but the parameter description 'show file to browse' adds no meaningful semantics beyond the tool description. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'show file to browse' contradicts the tool name 'download_model', which implies an action of downloading. It is misleading as it does not state that the tool downloads a model.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over siblings like 'read_file' or 'list_directory'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It only says 'list the contents' without specifying whether it returns files only, includes subdirectories, or handles non-existent paths. No safety or mutability info.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be under-specified for a tool with no annotations or output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, output schema, or error handling info, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain output format, behavior with hidden files, or error cases (e.g., invalid path).
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% for the single parameter 'path', which has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists directory contents, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like read_file or check_status, which are distinct but could be confused for similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, directory existence, or cases where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether intermediate directories are created, what happens if the directory already exists, or any permissions required. The simple description omits critical behavioral 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriate for a simple operation, though it could arguably be expanded slightly for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or path semantics (e.g., absolute vs relative), leaving gaps for an agent.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 'Create a new directory' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file, write_file, or list_directory which operate on files rather than directories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a directory versus using write_file for file creation. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose important behaviors such as encoding handling, file size limits, or whether the entire file is read at once. Minimal transparency.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured with additional behavioral notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations. Lacks details on return format, encoding, or error handling. Incomplete for a simple file read operation.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the parameter description is adequate but not enriched.
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?
Description clearly states the tool reads the contents of a file with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like write_file and list_directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks context for prerequisites or scenarios where other tools (e.g., download_model) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Missing annotations and description does not disclose critical behavior such as whether the file is overwritten or appended, or what happens if the file already exists.
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?
Extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded, but could benefit from a slightly more detailed one-liner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description does not cover important aspects like return value, error conditions, or file handling behavior.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Write content to a file' clearly states the verb (write) and resource (file), and distinguishes from siblings like read_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_file), and no mention of prerequisites or specific use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the asynchronous nature ('may take time') and the need to save returned ids. However, it does not discuss rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or resource costs. This is adequate but incomplete for a complex generation tool.
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?
The description is three sentences long, front-loading the main purpose and then explaining response and workflow. It is concise, with no redundant phrases, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior and next steps.
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?
Given 15 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's workflow: starting generation, saving the returned uuid and subscription_key, and using check_status for tracking. It could be improved by explicitly stating the asynchronous nature and mentioning that the output can be downloaded later via download_model. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly in a multi-step process.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all 15 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond repeating that generation is based on 'prompt and parameters' and mentions image uploads (max 5) and bbox_condition briefly. Since the schema already documents parameters, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding of parameter usage.
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 states that the tool initiates a 3D model generation process and sends a request. It specifies the action (create), the resource (3D model), and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_status (which tracks progress) and download_model (which retrieves the result). The verb 'initiates' and the mention of a 'main uuid and subscription_key' provide precise context.
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 explains that the response includes uuid and subscription_key which must be saved to continue tracking progress via the check_status tool. It also notes that generation may take time, guiding users to use check_status for updates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives for different scenarios, such as when immediate results are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses possible statuses and the correct agent behavior for each. Could mention idempotency or read-only nature, but sufficient for a status check.
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 sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second explains workflow usage, third lists status values. Front-loaded and no wasted words.
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 status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers all necessary information for an agent to use correctly.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the one parameter. The description adds that the subscriptionKey comes from generate_model, adding meaningful context beyond the schema.
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 specifies the verb ('checks the status'), the resource ('3D model generation process'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_model and download_model by referencing the subscription_key and the workflow steps.
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?
It provides clear when-to-use guidance: after generate_model, before download_model, and describes actions based on status outcomes. Does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the flow is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![context3d-model-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Context3D/context3d-model-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Context3D/context3d-model-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![context3d-model-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Context3D/context3d-model-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Context3D/context3d-model-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Context3D/context3d-model-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server