SketchUp MCP untuk Windows

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_material

Paint a SketchUp entity by ID with a named color to apply its material. Use red, blue, gray, black, and other supported names.

Instructions

Paint an entity with a named colour.

Supported names: red, green, blue, yellow, cyan, magenta, white, black,
brown, orange, gray. For any other colour use eval_ruby with
Sketchup::Color.new(r, g, b).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`material`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the closed set of valid colour names, which is real behavioral information, but it says nothing about what happens to an existing material on the entity, whether the change is reversible, or any permission requirements for a write operation.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the enumeration plus escape hatch following. Every element (verb, resource, valid values, alternative) earns its place with no filler.

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, so return values need not be described. The description adequately covers the constrained mutation and its escape hatch; the only meaningful gap is the unexplained id parameter and the absence of any note on how existing material is handled.

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%, so the schema gives only bare names. The description fully illuminates the "material" parameter by listing valid values and the fallback path, but the "id" parameter is never explained (which entity, what identifier format), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ("Paint an entity") plus the constrained input domain (a named colour), so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like create_component or transform_component, 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly enumerates the accepted names and routes the agent to the alternative tool (eval_ruby with Sketchup::Color.new) for any colour outside that set. This is a clear when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else statement naming the sibling by name.

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

Deploy Server