Skip to main content
Glama

3DLogo.io

by io.github.cottom

Build a 3D logo editor link

build_logo_editor_link
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns a link that opens the 3D logo editor already styled, from a wordmark (text), from a stored logo image (mark, see upload_logo_image), or on the upload panel (upload=true) when the person will drop the file themselves. Works without an account. Use list_materials for material ids.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fontNo
markNoMark id from upload_logo_image or request_logo_image_upload
textNoThe wordmark, up to 40 characters (omit when passing mark or upload)
depthNoExtrusion depth, default 30
motionNo
uploadNoOpen on the upload panel with the look prepared; the person drops their own file
materialNoMaterial id from list_materials (e.g. gold-clean-optimised)
backgroundNoHex colour, e.g. #1a1a1a
environmentNoLighting room

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesAbsolute https URL the user can open
markYes
textYes
uploadYes
materialYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / mark / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / mark / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / material / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / material / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / text / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / text / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: the result is a link, it opens the editor pre-styled, it works without an account, and it supports three distinct starting states. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense sentences cover the main function, all three input modes, a key dependency, and the auth behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

The description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, how to invoke each mode, where to get material ids, and the fact that no account is needed. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required here. A minor gap is that it does not explain how the optional styling parameters interact with the three modes, but the schema and enum descriptions cover most of that.

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?

The schema already documents 78% of parameters, and the description adds meaningful semantics: text means wordmark, mark refers to a stored logo from upload_logo_image, and upload=true opens the upload panel. It also connects material to list_materials. This adds real value beyond the schema, though some optional styling parameters are left to the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Returns a link that opens the 3D logo editor already styled.' It then distinguishes the three main input modes (text, mark, upload), which clearly separates this from sibling tools like create_text_logo_project and create_image_logo_project that create actual projects rather than return editor links.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage context: use text for a wordmark, mark for a stored logo via upload_logo_image, or upload=true for the upload panel. It also directs the agent to list_materials for material ids and notes that no account is required. It does not explicitly name negative cases or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All 3DLogo.io toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources, but several overlapping pairs exist: search/list_projects both find projects by title, fetch/get_project both return project details, and upload_logo_image/request_logo_image_upload are two upload paths. The descriptions help clarify boundaries, but an agent could still misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_). Minor deviations like bare 'fetch' and 'search', plus the mixed '3d' in generate_3d_model vs '3D' in descriptions, keep it from being perfectly consistent.

Tool Count2/5

At 31 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where agent tool selection becomes cognitively heavy. While the server covers a broad platform, several tools are near-redundant and could be consolidated, making the count feel inflated.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers project lifecycle, sharing/publishing, AI generation, uploads, materials, and account/plan management quite thoroughly. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct create_coin_project tool and no deletion for generation runs, but these are workable.

Resources