Skip to main content
Glama
healkeiser

fxhoudinimcp

by healkeiser
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_material_network

Creates a new material network in /mat, mapping base_color, roughness, metalness, and opacity to the shader's parameters and listing applied or skipped keys.

Instructions

Create a new material network in /mat.

The keys base_color ([r, g, b]), roughness, metalness and opacity are accepted on both shader types and mapped to the shader's own parameter names (base_colorr/g/b and specular_roughness on MaterialX, basecolor, rough, metallic and opac on Principled). Any other key must be the shader's real parameter name; a list sets the whole parm tuple. The reply lists what was applied and, under "skipped", every key that matched no parameter, with the reason.

Args: ctx: MCP context. name: Name for the new material node. shader_type: "principled" (principledshader::2.0), "materialx" (mtlxstandard_surface), or any material node type name. params: Parameter name-value pairs to set on the shader.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
paramsNo
shader_typeNoprincipled

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.24.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose substantial behavior: the canonical key aliasing (base_color/roughness/metalness/opacity mapped per shader type), the rule that unknown keys must match real parameter names, tuple semantics for lists, and the failure surface ('skipped' keys with reasons). It stops short of stating permissions, creation location within /mat beyond the network, or name-collision handling.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining prose is dense but earns its place by explaining the alias mapping and skip reporting. The Args block is standard docstring style; minor verbosity but no filler.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the argument semantics, mutation behavior, and even the shape of the reply (applied list plus 'skipped' reasons), which covers most of what is missing from structured fields. It only lacks tool-routing context relative to its siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: name ('Name for the new material node'), shader_type (with concrete values principled/materialx plus arbitrary node types), and params (name-value pairs with the full mapping rules). No parameter is left ambiguous.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new material network in /mat'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as create_material, build_network, or create_node, which an agent must currently do by inference.

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 never states when to choose this tool over create_material, build_network, or create_node. It offers argument-selection detail (which shader_type values exist) but no tool-selection or exclusion guidance, so the agent gets no routing help.

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