Skip to main content
Glama

compare_renders

Compare 2-4 3D models side by side in a single rendered image. Visual diff tool for design iterations, texture variants, and parameter sweeps.

Instructions

Render 2-4 models side by side in a single comparison image.

General-purpose visual diff tool — compare any 3D models at the same
camera angle in one image.  Each model is rendered individually then
stitched together with labels.

**Use cases:**
- Texture or decoration variants (compare 3 pattern options)
- Design iterations (before vs after)
- Material color comparisons
- Parameter sweeps (small / medium / large)

Returns a single PNG image path that can be displayed inline.
Supports 2-4 models per comparison.  When 4 models are provided
they are arranged in a 2x2 grid; otherwise a single row.

Args:
    paths: 2-4 file paths (STL, 3MF, OBJ, or SCAD).
    labels: Custom labels for each model.  Defaults to A, B, C, D.
    angle: Camera angle for all renders.  One of ``isometric``,
        ``front``, ``right``, ``top``, ``bottom``, ``back``.
    width: Per-model image width in pixels (default 800).
    height: Per-model image height in pixels (default 600).
    colors: Optional hex color per model (e.g. ``["#F72323", "#2323F7"]``).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
angleNoisometric
pathsYes
widthNo
colorsNo
heightNo
labelsNo
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. Describes rendering pipeline (individual renders stitched with labels) and return type (PNG path). Lacks details on performance, error handling, or side effects; but for a read-only render tool this is adequate.

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?

Efficient structure: overview sentence, use cases, output description, then parameter list. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, description covers key aspects: purpose, use cases, arrangement logic, return type, and all parameters. Minor omissions: no mention of error handling or behavior with invalid inputs, but overall sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0% but description fully compensates with detailed parameter explanations: paths (file types, count), labels (defaults), angle (enum list), width/height (defaults), colors (hex array). Adds meaning beyond schema types and defaults.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Render 2-4 models side by side in a single comparison image,' with clear verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like render_model_preview (single render) and compare_mesh_versions (mesh diff) by specifying it's a visual diff for any 3D models.

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?

Provides clear use cases (texture variants, design iterations, material colors, parameter sweeps) and constraints (2-4 models, layout rules). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context implies it's for multi-model comparisons; alternatives are not named but are differentiable.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/codeofaxel/kiln'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server