Maya MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_object

Creates Maya objects by type—including primitives, cameras, and lights—and returns the new object's name for immediate scene use.

Instructions

Create a Maya object. object_type: cube, sphere, plane, cylinder, cone, torus, camera, point_light, directional_light, spot_light. Returns the created object name.

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": {
      "object_type": "<object_type>"
    },
    "name": "create_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`object_type`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that an object is added to the Maya scene and that the created object's name is returned, but says nothing about default placement, whether the object is selected afterward, or undo/error behavior for invalid types.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action, then the type vocabulary, then the return value. Short and every sentence is useful; only the comma-wrapped type list is slightly awkward.

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, and the description still notes the returned name, so return semantics are covered. The only real hole is the optional 'name' parameter; otherwise an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 0% and object_type has no enum, so the explicit list of valid object types is genuinely valuable and compensates for the schema gap. However, the optional 'name' parameter is never mentioned — its default naming behavior is undefined in both schema and description.

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 ('Create a Maya object') and enumerates the object types, which distinguishes it clearly from duplicate_object and import_file. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Create' vs. the sibling duplicate_object/import_file is inferable but never stated. There is no guidance on when to prefer duplication, import, or which object type to choose for a given task.

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