3dBlock Studio

by TheGivingCircuits

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

preview_prop

Read-only

Render a prop builder from four angles beside a 1.75 m reference person and return the image to assess scale and form.

Instructions

Render one prop builder from 4 angles next to a 1.75 m reference person, and return the image.

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": {
      "module": "<module>",
      "builder": "<builder>"
    },
    "name": "preview_prop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`look`	No
`height`	No
`module`	Yes
`builder`	Yes
`options`	No
`distance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: four rendered angles, a 1.75 m reference person, and an image return. It does not explain output format or options behavior, but the added render-specific context is substantial.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. Each phrase contributes to purpose, rendering behavior, or return value.

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 six-parameter render tool with a nested options object and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers the high-level purpose and says an image is returned, but leaves parameter meanings, options, and usage conditions undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, including required module and builder plus optional look, height, options, and distance. The description mentions a prop builder and a 1.75 m reference person, but it does not explain what any parameter controls, what module means, or what options contains.

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: it renders one prop builder from four angles, includes a scale reference person, and returns an image. This clearly distinguishes it from list_props and from generic rendering siblings such as render_stills.

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?

The description implies this is for previewing a prop builder, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to use preview_prop versus render_stills, list_props, or other related tools.

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