Skip to main content
Glama

bake_maps

Bake a mesh's material into PNG texture maps (base color, normal, roughness, metallic, ao, orm) on its UV layout, enabling glTF export of procedural or layered materials.

Instructions

Bake the material of one mesh into PNG maps on its UV, so glTF can carry a procedural or layered material. Uses Cycles on the CPU. maps: base_color (sRGB), normal (tangent space), roughness, metallic, ao, orm (one image: R occlusion, G roughness, B metallic). Empty means base_color, normal, roughness, ao. For a metal ask for base_color, normal, orm. Files are _.png in out_dir (the work folder, bakes/, when empty). size is pixels, a power of two: 512-1024 for props, 2048 for a hero asset. margin is the pixel padding around UV islands. samples: 16 is enough for colour and normal, raise it for a clean ao. bevel_radius (metres, about 0.2-0.5% of the object size) rounds hard edges in the normal map only; it needs a material without an image normal map. The mesh needs a UV map without overlaps (check_mesh reports the UV); without one it is unwrapped with smart project. uv_layer picks another layer. A material without bump gives a flat normal map and the answer says so. replace_material=true builds the Principled material <object>_baked from the images and puts it on the mesh, so export_glb writes the textures. ao alone stays a file; inside orm it becomes occlusionTexture. One call bakes one object. Background job, one map per step (a 2048 px map takes 20-60 s): after wait seconds the answer is a job id for job_status (cancel=true stops it). Do not edit the object while it runs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mapsNo
sizeNo
waitNo
marginNo
objectYes
out_dirNo
samplesNo
uv_layerNo
bevel_radiusNo
replace_materialNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: CPU Cycles baking, background job model with wait/job_status/cancel, per-map step timing, output file naming and default output directory, UV overlap handling, bevel_radius limitations, replace_material side effects, and the 'do not edit while running' warning.

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 long but appropriately sized for a 10-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations. It is front-loaded with purpose and the most important map semantics, then proceeds through parameters and job behavior without filler; every sentence adds actionable information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity, absent annotations, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, all parameters, behavior, prerequisites, output naming, job lifecycle, and interactions with sibling tools like check_mesh, export_glb, and job_status.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains maps values and defaults, size pixel guidance and power-of-two constraint, margin meaning, samples recommendations, bevel_radius units and normal-map-only behavior, uv_layer selection, out_dir default, wait behavior, replace_material effect, and object scope.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Bake the material of one mesh into PNG maps on its UV'. It also names the downstream reason (glTF carrying procedural/layered materials) and distinguishes itself from siblings like unwrap, set_material, and export_glb. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (baking procedural/layered material into textures for glTF export) and conditions for map selection, UV requirements, and material setup. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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