Maya MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_material

Create a Maya material or shader and its shading group by specifying a name and material type, such as lambert, blinn, phong, or standardSurface.

Instructions

Create a Maya material/shader and its shading group. material_type: lambert, blinn, phong, standardSurface, aiStandardSurface.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_material"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`material_type`	No		lambert

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool creates both a material/shader and a shading group, which is important side-effect context. However, it omits behavior around duplicate names, existing materials, or scene mutation implications.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key parameter values. There is no wasted text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: purpose, required name, and valid material_type values. Missing duplicate-name and assignment workflow details are minor gaps but could matter in a DCC scene.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema only says material_type is a string with default lambert. The description compensates by enumerating valid material_type values (lambert, blinn, phong, standardSurface, aiStandardSurface). The name parameter remains undocumented, but its meaning is relatively obvious.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a Maya material/shader and its shading group. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like assign_material and list_materials without needing to open schemas.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assign_material or list_materials. It does not mention prerequisites, whether the material must later be assigned, or any context for choosing material_type.

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