trident-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

segment_mesh

Destructive

Split a 3D mesh into separate parts. Creates a Tripo task and returns a task_id immediately; then call wait_for_task for completion.

Instructions

Split a mesh into parts. Feed the task ID to complete_mesh. Creates a Tripo task (spends credits) and returns its task_id immediately; then call wait_for_task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`input`	Yes	Task ID of the mesh (or a file token / URL)
`model`	No	Segmentation version: v1.0-20250506 (default, geometric) or v2.0-20260430 (beta, semantic)
`ref_image`	No	Reference image guiding the parts (v2.0 only; overrides granularity)
`split_by_connectivity`	No	Also split disconnected pieces (v2.0 only; default true)
`segmentation_granularity`	No	How finely to split (v2.0 only; default balanced)

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.

Changed13 schema fields changedv0.4.0Oct 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / input / description

Previous value: -"Task ID, model URL, or file token to segment"New value: +"Task ID of the mesh (or a file token / URL)"

changedInput schema / properties / model / description

Previous value: -"Optional segmentation model version"New value: +"Segmentation version: v1.0-20250506 (default, geometric) or v2.0-20260430 (beta, semantic)"

addedInput schema / properties / ref_image

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Reference image guiding the parts (v2.0 only; overrides granularity)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / segmentation_granularity

Added value: +{
+  "description": "How finely to split (v2.0 only; default balanced)",
+  "enum": [
+    "simple",
+    "balanced",
+    "detailed"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / split_by_connectivity

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Also split disconnected pieces (v2.0 only; default true)",
+  "type": [
+    "null",
+    "boolean"
+  ]
+}

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 / status

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

removedOutput schema / properties / taskId

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

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: -[
-  "taskId",
-  "status"
-]New value: +[
+  "task_id",
+  "operation",
+  "produces"
+]

Addedv0.3.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses that the call spends credits, returns a task_id immediately (async), and requires a follow-up wait_for_task. This credit-cost and async-flow disclosure goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the essential follow-up workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description captures the async task flow and credit cost. The only notable gap is the absence of any differentiation from the smart_segment sibling, which an agent would need for correct tool selection.

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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters including version differences and enums. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 ('Split a mesh into parts'), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool smart_segment, which appears to serve a similar segmentation purpose, so an agent cannot easily tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

It gives explicit downstream workflow guidance ('Feed the task ID to complete_mesh' and 'then call wait_for_task'), which is genuinely useful. But it offers no guidance on when to choose this over smart_segment or other siblings, so usage selection is only partially addressed.

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