Maya MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

assign_material

Assign a named material to one or more objects in Autodesk Maya so AI assistants can update scene shading through Maya MCP.

Instructions

Assign a material to one or more objects. object_names is a list.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "material_name": "<material_name>",
      "object_names": "<object_names>"
    },
    "name": "assign_material"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`object_names`	Yes
`material_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether assignment overwrites an existing material, whether material_name must reference a pre-existing material via list_materials, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, which is good. However, the second sentence merely restates the schema's array type, so it doesn't fully earn its place given the missing behavioral context.

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?

The tool is a mutation with zero annotations and undocumented parameters; while an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), the description should explain prerequisites, overwrite behavior, and material_name format. It falls well short of that.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only notes that object_names is a list — which the schema already shows as an array. Nothing is said about material_name's expected format or whether it must match an existing material.

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+resource ('Assign a material') and scope ('to one or more objects'), which clearly distinguishes it from create_material and set_material_property. No explicit sibling routing is given, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like create_material (must the material already exist?) or set_material_property. The agent is left to infer the workflow entirely.

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