Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Daz3D-MCP

Daz3D-MCP

by MictlanLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

scene_save

Saves the current Daz Studio scene as a .duf file, letting you write to a chosen path or overwrite the existing file when needed.

Instructions

Saves the scene as a .duf file.

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": "scene_save"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoAbsolute .duf path. Omit to save over the current file.
overwriteNoAllow replacing another existing file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds only the file format; it says nothing about side effects such as whether saving updates the document's current-file pointer or dirty state, which matters for a save operation.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter, zero-required tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate but bare. An agent gets the action and format, but no hint about document state after saving or about the overwrite semantics handled implicitly by the schema.

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%, and the schema itself explains both the path default (save over current file) and the overwrite flag. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Saves the scene") plus the output format (.duf), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like scene_open or scene_info, but those are clearly different 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite context (e.g., must a scene be loaded first). The only usage nuance — omitting the path saves over the current file — lives in the schema, not the description.

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