Skip to main content
Glama

tripo_texture

Regenerate a 3D model's texture from an optional reference image or its geometry; this overwrites the current project model for download.

Instructions

重新生成贴图,对应内部接口 operation/texture_model。可以给一张参考图,也可以不给(纯靠几何推纹理)。会覆盖项目当前模型,完成后用 tripo_download 取。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "tripo_texture"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
delightNo去光处理,默认 false
image_pathNo参考图(可选),不给就按几何生成
part_namesNo默认按项目根节点自动填
project_idYes
wait_secondsNo默认 480 秒
texture_qualityNo默认 detailed
texture_alignmentNo默认 original_image

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well on the key risk: it explicitly warns that the project's current model will be overwritten (a destructive side effect), and notes the geometry-only fallback. It omits permissions/rate-limit detail but covers the most important behavioral trait.

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?

Compact, front-loaded with the core purpose and operation mapping, then the override warning and retrieval hint. Slight redundancy in mentioning the internal interface name, but overall tight.

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-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, the destructive overwrite, and the follow-up download step. The wait_seconds async-wait semantics aren't surfaced in the description, a minor remaining gap.

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 86%, so parameters are already well documented. The description only echoes the optional-reference-image behavior already in the schema (image_path) and adds no syntax/default details, fitting the baseline for high coverage.

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+resource (重新生成贴图/regenerate texture) and even names the internal operation it maps to. An agent can tell this is the texture-generation tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like tripo_pbr or tripo_image.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains that a reference image is optional and geometry-only generation is possible, and routes to tripo_download for retrieval. However it gives no when-not conditions or comparison against other texture/PBR siblings, leaving the choice somewhat implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.