Skip to main content
Glama

paint_color_attribute

Paint vertex colors on a Blender mesh, creating the color attribute if missing and setting it as the active render color for materials and glTF export.

Instructions

Fill a color attribute (vertex colors) on a mesh, creating it if needed.

The attribute becomes the active and render color. Read it in a material with a ShaderNodeVertexColor node whose layer_name is the attribute name. Game engines and glTF export pick it up as vertex color.

Args: object_name: Mesh object. color: Linear RGB or RGBA, each 0.0 to 1.0. attribute_name: Color attribute; created if it does not exist. domain: CORNER (per face corner, allows hard color edges) or POINT (per vertex). Used only when creating the attribute. data_type: BYTE_COLOR (8-bit) or FLOAT_COLOR. Used only when creating. vertex_indices: Vertices to paint. Omit to paint the whole mesh, or the edit-mode selection with selection="CURRENT". selection: When vertex_indices is omitted: ALL, or CURRENT for the vertices selected in edit mode (use the select_* tools first).

Returns: Dict with the attribute, its domain and type, whether it was created, how many elements were painted, and all color attribute names.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colorYes
domainNoCORNER
data_typeNoBYTE_COLOR
selectionNoALL
object_nameYes
attribute_nameNoColor
vertex_indicesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it states the attribute becomes active and render color, that domain/data_type only apply at creation time, how a material consumes it via ShaderNodeVertexColor, and that glTF/game engines pick it up. It does not say whether existing painted values are overwritten on elements outside vertex_indices or what happens on a non-mesh object, so it falls just short of complete.

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 substantive behavior is front-loaded in the first paragraph before the Args block, and each parameter sentence earns its place. The Returns block partly restates an existing output schema, which is mild redundancy, but the overall structure is easy to scan.

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 an output schema, the description covers the essential creation semantics, color space, and downstream consumption. The main gap is failure/edge behavior (non-mesh object, unsupported attribute types, overwrite semantics), which an agent would want before calling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all seven parameters: color as linear RGB/RGBA in 0.0–1.0, attribute_name's create-if-absent behavior, domain's CORNER-vs-POINT tradeoff, data_type options, vertex_indices/selection interplay, and the object_name target. This adds meaning the bare schema does not.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Fill a color attribute (vertex colors) on a mesh') plus a create-if-missing behavior, which cleanly separates it from the sibling remove_color_attribute. An agent knows immediately what operation this performs and on what data.

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 explains the operating modes concretely: omit vertex_indices to paint everything, or pair selection="CURRENT" with the select_* tools as a prerequisite. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions (e.g., when to use material color instead of vertex color), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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