Skip to main content
Glama
hedging8563

TokenLab MCP Server

by hedging8563
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Create 3D model generation task

create_3d_model

Generate a 3D model from a text prompt or image via Tripo3D, returning a task ID for polling.

Instructions

Creates a 3D model generation task using Tripo3D. Returns a task ID for polling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedNoSeed for repeatable generation where supported by the model.
userNoEnd-user identifier.
imageNoBase64 image for image-to-3D
modelNotripo-h3.1
styleNoStyle hint for compatible 3D model families.
formatNo
promptYes3D model description
qualityNo
image_urlNo
X-TokenLab-Delivery-PolicyNoPer-request Delivery policy. Overrides the API key and Workspace defaults. Auto tries TokenLab Veri…

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.26
    • changedInput schema / properties / seed / description
      Previous value: -"Seed for deterministic-compatible providers."New value: +"Seed for repeatable generation where supported by the model."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.24
    • addedInput schema / properties / X-TokenLab-Delivery-Policy
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Per-request Delivery policy. Overrides the API key and Workspace defaults. Auto tries TokenLab Veri…",
+  "enum": [
+    "auto",
+    "verified",
+    "official"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.4
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / properties / seed / maximum
      Removed value: -9007199254740991
    • removedInput schema / properties / seed / minimum
      Removed value: --9007199254740991
  4. Addedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive profile, so the safety picture is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that it is an asynchronous task returning a pollable task ID, but says nothing about cost, quota, or how the per-request Delivery policy affects execution.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing wasteful, though the brevity leaves room for the omitted usage and parameter context, so it is efficient rather than exemplary.

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 10-parameter, 60%-coverage, no-output-schema tool, the description is too thin: it omits how to choose between the prompt, image, and image_url input modes, what the returned task ID is used for beyond 'polling', and any input validation constraints. The async hint is the only operational detail provided.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Ten parameters with only 60% schema description coverage (format, quality, image_url, model default, and delivery policy are undocumented), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It neither explains the prompt-vs-image generation paths nor the enum trade-offs, leaving a real coverage gap uncompensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a 3D model generation task') and names the provider Tripo3D, which clearly separates it from image/video/audio siblings. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing it from the other create_* generation tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The async framing ('Returns a task ID for polling') implies an indirect workflow, but the tool never names the follow-up tool (get_task_status) or when to prefer prompt-based vs image-based generation. Usage is only inferable, not stated.

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