Skip to main content
Glama
RoxyCoding

Roxy Blender MCP

by RoxyCoding
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_sweep

Generate 3D swept geometry by extruding a profile along a path. Create handles, pipes, cables, frames, rings, or springs with optional taper, caps, and bevels.

Instructions

Sweep a profile along a 3D path: mug/bag/door handles, pipes, cables, hoses, bent tubular chair frames, picture frames (closed + rect), rails, springs, horns (taper).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
capsNo
nameNoSweep
pathYes3D path points [[x,y,z], ...] in object space (metres).
bevelNoRounded edges via an angle-limited Bevel modifier with hardened normals: width in metres (e.g. 0.002 for a 10 cm part), or {width, segments, angle}. true = automatic width.
taperNo[start_scale, end_scale] or one scale per path point.
closedNoLoop the path (rings, frames, rims).
originNoWhere the origin sits on the part's bounding box: center, bottom, top, left, right, front, back, min, max, or keep (geometry coordinates exactly as given). origin='bottom' + location z=0 stands a part on the floor.keep
parentNo
smoothNoSmooth curve through the points (false = straight segments with sharp corners).
profileNoCross-section: a radius number, {type:'circle', radius}, {type:'rect', size:[w,h], corner_radius}, or {type:'custom', points:[[x,y],...], interpolation:'smooth'}.
shadingNoauto = smooth with sharp edges kept above smooth_angle (best default); smooth; flat.auto
locationNoWorld position [x,y,z] (metres) of the object origin.
materialNoMaterial preset name (list_material_presets), or {preset, color, roughness, weathering, ...} like apply_material, or the name of an existing material. Presets with a real-world scan use Poly Haven automatically; {'polyhaven': 'mossy rock'} picks any Poly Haven texture by description.
rotationNoRotation [x,y,z] in degrees.
collectionNo
resolutionNo
subdivisionNoSubdivision Surface levels (1-3) for soft/organic shapes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether a new object is created, whether default caps produce watertight geometry, or that bevel/subdivision modifiers may be attached. The examples hint at capability, not behavior.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and then supplies examples; nothing is padded with filler. The example list is long but earns most of its space by illustrating the tool's range.

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 17-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never clarifies defaults (caps=true, smooth=true, resolution=12) or how the many parameters relate. An agent must fall back entirely on the schema to call it correctly.

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 71%, so the schema itself documents most parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds only incidental hints ("picture frames (closed + rect)" points at closed/profile, "horns (taper)" points at taper) and explains nothing about the other parameters or how they interact.

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 gives a specific verb ("sweep") and resource ("a profile along a 3D path") and reinforces it with concrete object examples. However, it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like create_pipe, create_loft, or create_extrusion, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these mutually similar path/profile tools to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by the example list (handles, pipes, cables, springs, horns), which signals appropriate scenarios, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative. The agent is left to infer that create_pipe/create_loft are the competing choices.

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