3DLogo.io

Create a logo project from an uploaded image

create_image_logo_project

Saves a new 3D logo project from a mark stored with upload_logo_image or request_logo_image_upload, with a material and lighting, so it appears in the user's Projects. The image is traced into 3D the first time the project opens; open it once and save before publishing. Does not spend credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mark`	Yes	Mark id from upload_logo_image or request_logo_image_upload
`depth`	No	Extrusion depth, default 30
`title`	No	Project name; defaults to the file name
`motion`	No
`material`	No	Material id from list_materials (e.g. gold-clean-optimised)
`background`	No	Hex colour, e.g. #1a1a1a
`environment`	No	Lighting room

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`url`	Yes	Opens the project in its studio
`kind`	Yes
`mark`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`isPublic`	Yes
`modelUrl`	Yes	Public GLB, for published meshes
`shareUrl`	Yes	Public page, when published
`inputType`	Yes
`kindLabel`	Yes
`updatedAt`	Yes	ISO 8601
`thumbnailUrl`	Yes	Saved thumbnail; needs the owner's browser session

Schema Changelog

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

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 6, 2026

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 / inputType / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / inputType / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / updatedAt / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / updatedAt / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, it discloses that a persistent project appears in the user's Projects, that image-to-3D tracing is deferred until first open, that the user must open and save before publishing, and that the operation does not spend credits. None of this contradicts the annotations' readOnly/destructive flags.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: the main action, the deferred-tracing caveat with required follow-up, and the cost implication. The most important information is front-loaded and there is 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?

For a create-with-7-parameters tool, the description covers source prerequisite, persistence, deferred processing, required follow-up action, and credit behavior; an output schema exists so return values need not be described. It could be slightly stronger by naming the text-logo sibling as the alternative, but nothing critical is missing for invoking it with a valid mark.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters and the description does not need to compensate. It adds useful context connecting 'mark' to the upload functions and mentions material/lighting, but it does not elaborate on depth, title, motion, or background beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence states the exact operation: 'Saves a new 3D logo project from a mark stored with upload_logo_image or request_logo_image_upload.' The verb 'saves', the object '3D logo project', and the source 'mark' make the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from text-logo and generation-saving siblings.

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?

It clearly names the prerequisite upstream tools ('upload_logo_image or request_logo_image_upload') and gives a specific post-creation instruction ('open it once and save before publishing'). It does not explicitly name create_text_logo_project as the alternative for text-based logos, so it falls just short of full when-not guidance.

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

All 3DLogo.io tools Inspect

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

Need Help?