Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Daz3D-MCP

Daz3D-MCP

by MictlanLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

light_create

Create and position a spot, point, or distant light, aiming it at a node or 3D coordinate to illuminate a Daz Studio scene.

Instructions

Adds a light, placed and aimed at a node or point.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "light_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNospot, point, or distant (sun).spot
colorNo
labelNo
powerNoLumens for spot/point (Iray default 1500); intensity for distant.
look_atNo
positionNo[x, y, z] cm.
rotationNo
propertiesNo{label: value} other light properties.
spread_angleNoSpot cone, degrees.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds that the light is aimed at a node or point, which hints at the look_at behavior, but says nothing about defaults applied, whether the light is selected afterward, or what is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though arguably too thin for a nine-parameter creation tool.

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?

For a nine-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description leaves out what is created by default, what the call returns (e.g., a handle or label needed for later light_set calls), and any side effects. It is inadequate relative to the tool's complexity.

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 56%, with the key parameters (type, color, power, look_at, position, properties, spread_angle) already documented inline. The description only echoes the position/look_at concept and adds nothing about the undocumented label and rotation parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Adds a light") plus its placement semantics ("placed and aimed at a node or point"). It does not differentiate from the sibling light_set, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus light_set (which presumably modifies existing lights), no prerequisites, and no indication of what happens if position or look_at are omitted. The agent must infer that this is the creation path.

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