3DLogo.io

Create a text logo project

create_text_logo_project

Saves a new 3D logo project from a wordmark with a material and lighting, so it appears in the user's Projects and opens in the editor. Does not spend credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`font`	No
`text`	Yes
`depth`	No
`title`	No	Project name; defaults to the text
`motion`	No
`material`	No	Material id from list_materials
`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
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: the operation creates a new persistent project, opens it in the editor, and does not consume credits. It does not discuss overwrite behavior or auth requirements, but 'Saves a new' plus the idempotentHint=false annotation already signal non-overwriting creation.

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 sentences front-load the core action, then state persistence/editor behavior and credit cost. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 creation tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description captures the essential outcome and credit behavior. It is slightly weakened by not naming the closest sibling alternatives, but the schema carries parameter details and the output schema removes the need to explain return values.

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 descriptions already cover title, material, background, and environment, and the description maps 'wordmark' to the required text and 'material and lighting' to material/environment. It does not add semantics for the remaining optional parameters (font, depth, motion), though their enums/ranges provide some guidance, so the description neither fully compensates nor is redundant.

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 names a specific action ('Saves a new 3D logo project'), the input ('a wordmark with a material and lighting'), and the user-visible outcome ('appears in the user's Projects and opens in the editor'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_image_logo_project by focusing on a text/wordmark input and the resulting editable project.

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?

The description implies use when the user wants to persist a text-based 3D logo as an editable project, and it notes that no credits are spent. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over create_image_logo_project, save_generation_as_project, or quote_generation, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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?