forge3d-mcp

Make Scene Viewer

make_scene_viewer

Combine several 3D models into a single self-contained Three.js HTML page, producing a shareable browser preview.

Instructions

Compose several models into ONE self-contained Three.js page.

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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "make_scene_viewer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`items`	Yes
`title`	No	forge3d scene
`out_html`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.7Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it does not meet it. The word 'self-contained' hints at inlining assets, but nothing discloses whether 'out_html' writes a file to disk (a side effect), whether existing files are overwritten, or what happens when an item fails to load.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the distinguishing detail ('ONE self-contained') emphasized. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, 'items' is an array of free-form objects with 'additionalProperties: true' and zero documentation anywhere, meaning an agent has no basis for constructing a valid call to the only required parameter.

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 0% for 3 parameters, so the schema contributes almost nothing and the description must compensate. It partially does: 'several models' maps to the 'items' array and 'self-contained page' implies the 'out_html' destination, but neither the per-item object shape nor the 'title' or null-default behavior is clarified.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Compose') with a concrete output artifact ('ONE self-contained Three.js page') and names the input class ('several models'). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'make_viewer', which by name covers very similar ground.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus 'make_viewer', 'render_model', or 'convert_model'. The only implied cue is the plural 'several models', leaving the agent to infer the multi-model condition on its own.

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