Skip to main content
Glama

blender_procedural_material

Create a complete procedural material graph in one call, wiring mapping, texture, color ramp, roughness, and bump nodes for hard-surface or natural surfaces.

Instructions

Build a complete procedural surface in one call.

Wires a coordinate and mapping node to a noise, voronoi, wave or checker texture, then through a colour ramp into Base Color, a map-range into Roughness, and the raw field into a bump node. This is the graph most hard-surface and natural surfaces actually need, and it is tedious to assemble socket by socket.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoMaterial name.Procedural
scaleNoFeature size.
assignNoObjects to assign to.
detailNo
color_aNoLow colour RGB.
color_bNoHigh colour RGB.
featureNoVoronoi feature: F1, F2, SMOOTH_F1, DISTANCE_TO_EDGE.F1
patternNoDriver texture.fbm
metallicNo
ramp_lowNo
ramp_highNo
rough_lowNo
wave_typeNoWave type: BANDS, RINGS, X, Y, Z, DIAGONAL.BANDS
distortionNo
rough_highNo
bump_distanceNo
bump_strengthNo0-1 bump relief.
response_formatNo'markdown' for readable output, 'json' for raw structured data.markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv4.4.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already signal this is a mutating and non-idempotent call, and the description usefully adds what the tool builds: a wired node graph connected to Base Color, Roughness, and bump. However, it does not disclose whether an existing material is replaced or reused, what happens on repeated calls, or what the response contains, which matters for a tool with no idempotency guarantee.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place: the first states the result, the second explains the graph construction, and the third gives practical rationale. No schema details are redundantly repeated.

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?

Given the high parameter count, sparse annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description explains the main node-graph behavior well but leaves noticeable gaps: material creation/replacement semantics, return-value content, and pattern-specific parameter interactions. It is adequate for a rough understanding but not fully complete for reliable 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 56%, and the description adds structural meaning by connecting broad parameter groups to graph stages: texture pattern, color ramp, roughness map-range, and bump. It does not fully compensate for undocumented parameters like detail, metallic, distortion, and the individual ramp/rough values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Build a complete procedural surface in one call,' then details a precise node graph from coordinate/mapping through texture, color ramp, roughness map-range, and bump. This clearly differentiates the tool from generic material or shader builders among the sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: it is the graph 'most hard-surface and natural surfaces actually need' and saves the user from tedious socket-by-socket assembly. It does not name specific alternatives or state explicit when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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