Blender Bridge

Accept collaboration invitation

accept_collaboration

Destructive

Accept an invitation after the user agrees to its shown your_role. For receive, pass your own listed device_id to receive commands in that Blender. For control, no local computer is needed and the shared computer is selected automatically.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "accept_collaboration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Incoming invitation identifier from connection state.
`device_id`	No	Own listed computer for accepting a receive-role invitation; control needs no own receiving computer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / device_id / description

Added value: +"Own listed computer for accepting a receive-role invitation; control needs no own receiving computer."

addedInput schema / properties / id / description

Added value: +"Incoming invitation identifier from connection state."

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuinely useful role semantics (receive vs control topology), but says nothing about what acceptance irrevocably changes, whether a session starts immediately, or how to undo it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences front-load the action, which is good, but the first sentence has a grammatical breakdown ('to its shown your_role') that costs a read to parse. No filler padding, yet the phrasing could be tightened.

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 two-parameter accept tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key decision points an agent needs: role precondition and device_id requirement per role. Missing only the post-accept outcome and irreversibility note, which the destructiveHint partially signals.

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 coverage is 100%, with both id and device_id documented in-schema including the control-role exemption. The description restates that same receive/control distinction rather than adding new syntax, constraints, or failure modes, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Accept') and resource ('invitation'), and frames the precondition that the user has agreed to the shown role. It is clearly separable from decline_collaboration, though the phrase 'after the user agrees to its shown your_role' is garbled enough to blur the intent slightly.

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?

Gives role-conditional guidance: for 'receive' pass your own listed device_id so that Blender receives commands, and for 'control' no local computer is needed because the shared one is chosen automatically. It does not say when to prefer decline_collaboration or view_accept_invitation instead, but the branching instruction is concrete.

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

All Blender Bridge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?