trident-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rig_check

Destructive

Check if a mesh can be rigged and detect its skeleton type. Creates a free Tripo task and returns a task ID for asynchronous results.

Instructions

Check whether a mesh can be rigged and detect its skeleton type. The verdict arrives as the task's riggable and rig_type outputs. Creates a Tripo task (free) and returns its task_id immediately; then call wait_for_task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	Task ID of the mesh (or a file token / URL; GLB, FBX, OBJ, STL)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	No
`task_id`	Yes
`produces`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`operation`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedv0.4.0Oct 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / input / description

Previous value: -"Task ID, model URL, or file token to check"New value: +"Task ID of the mesh (or a file token / URL; GLB, FBX, OBJ, STL)"

addedOutput schema / properties / model
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / operation
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / produces
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / reason

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / rigType

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / riggable

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / task_id
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / warnings

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "null",
+    "array"
+  ]
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "riggable"
-]New value: +[
+  "task_id",
+  "operation",
+  "produces"
+]

Addedv0.3.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the operation is free, it is asynchronous (returns task_id immediately rather than the verdict), and the result surfaces as riggable/rig_type outputs. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent task creation. It does not explain why destructiveHint=true for a check operation, leaving that flag unexplained.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return semantics, then the required follow-up call. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields unnecessarily.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description helpfully names the relevant output fields (riggable, rig_type) and documents the async task pattern and follow-up tool. For a one-parameter async tool this is close to complete; only the rationale for the destructive annotation is left unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'input' parameter already documents accepted forms (task ID, file token, URL, GLB/FBX/OBJ/STL). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Check whether a mesh can be rigged and detect its skeleton type.' An agent can distinguish this from rig_model by the word 'check', but the description never names or contrasts that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow: it creates a task and returns task_id immediately, then explicitly names wait_for_task as the next call. What's missing is when to choose this over rig_model (i.e., that this is the pre-flight check before rigging) — no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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