3DLogo.io

Restyle a saved project

update_project_style

Idempotent

Use when the user wants an existing logo or coin project changed without opening the studio: material, lighting room, background, motion, depth, font, and the wordmark on text projects; on coins also the look, coin and mark colours, and the blank edge. Only the fields given change. The saved render, thumbnail and share posters refresh the next time the project is opened and saved. Do not use for meshes (their look is fixed) or to make something new (create_text_logo_project, duplicate_project).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`font`	No
`look`	No	Coin projects
`text`	No	New wordmark; text projects only (coins: 24 characters)
`blank`	No	Coin projects: the edge
`depth`	No	Extrusion depth; logo projects
`motion`	No
`material`	No	Material id from list_materials; logo projects
`background`	No	Hex colour, e.g. #1a1a1a
`coin_color`	No	Coin projects: the coin body
`logo_color`	No	Coin projects: the struck mark
`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
`changed`	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

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important side effects: only supplied fields change, and saved render/thumbnail/share posters refresh only after the project is next opened and saved. It also clarifies that mesh appearance is fixed, which helps set expectations.

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?

Four sentences cover purpose, scope, side effects, and exclusions without padding. The long field list is necessary detail, and the most important usage rule is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers when to use it, what it affects, how fields map to project types, and what side effects occur. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds project-type context to the parameters, explaining which fields apply to text projects vs coins vs logo projects. This meaningfully supplements the schema, which only has brief per-field annotations, and helps the agent select valid parameter combinations.

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 states a precise action—restyling an existing logo or coin project—and lists the changeable attributes. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from creation and mesh-related tools, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like create_text_logo_project and duplicate_project.

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?

It opens with 'Use when the user wants...' and closes with explicit exclusions: 'Do not use for meshes... or to make something new (create_text_logo_project, duplicate_project).' This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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?