Skip to main content
Glama

volume_render

Render 3D volumetric data from CT, MRI, or CFD simulations using customizable transfer function presets and quality settings.

Instructions

Volume render 3D data (CT, MRI, CFD fields) with transfer function presets.

Presets: generic, ct_bone, ct_tissue, mri_brain, thermal, isosurface_like

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath to volumetric data (VTI, VTK structured grid, etc.)
field_nameNoScalar field to render, None for active scalars
transfer_presetNoOpacity preset (ct_bone, ct_tissue, mri_brain, thermal, generic, isosurface_like)generic
colormapNoColor map presetviridis
qualityNoRender quality (draft/standard/cinematic/ultra/publication)standard
lightingNoLighting presetcinematic
backgroundNoBackground presetdark_gradient
widthNoImage width in pixels
heightNoImage height in pixels
scalar_rangeNo[min, max] for color scale
timestepNoSpecific timestep, "latest", or None
output_filenameNoOutput filenamevolume.png
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. The description only mentions presets and data types, missing behavioral details like output format, side effects, or computational cost. For a tool with 12 parameters, this is insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first clearly states purpose and supported data. The second lists presets. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't cover output format, quality interpretation, or practical usage hints. Incomplete for a complex rendering tool.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond listing transfer function presets. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb (Volume render) and resource (3D data) and lists data types (CT, MRI, CFD fields) and transfer function presets. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'render' (likely 2D) and 'contour'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for volume rendering of 3D data, but does not differentiate from alternatives like 'pv_isosurface' or 'render' in terms of scenarios.

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/kimimgo/viznoir'

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