Blender Bridge

Manage friend invitation

manage_friend

Destructive

Change a contact relationship after the user chooses the action. request sends a friend request to email; accept, decline and remove act on an existing invitation/contact id from list_friends. Returns refreshed contact state. Friendship alone grants no Blender execution or computer access: use invite_collaborator for an explicitly approved session. Use list_friends to inspect contacts without requesting a relationship change; view_manage_friend is the app-panel adapter.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_friend"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Existing friend or invitation identifier for accept, decline or remove, from the returned contact state.
`email`	No	Recipient account email for action=request.
`action`	Yes	Request a new friendship, accept or decline an invitation, or remove an existing friend.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / email / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / action / description

Added value: +"Request a new friendship, accept or decline an invitation, or remove an existing friend."

addedInput schema / properties / email / description

Added value: +"Recipient account email for action=request."

addedInput schema / properties / id / description

Added value: +"Existing friend or invitation identifier for accept, decline or remove, from the returned contact state."

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered; the description adds real value by clarifying that a resulting friendship does not confer execution or computer access, and that the return is refreshed contact state. It stops short of stating who can request whom (permissions), rate limits, or whether removal is reversible — minor gaps given the annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action semantics, then alternatives, then the security caveat — logically ordered with no filler sentences. It is dense (four distinct concerns in four sentences) but each clause carries operational meaning.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action semantics, operand sources, return shape ('refreshed contact state'), and sibling routing. Only auth/permission preconditions for sending a request are unaddressed, a modest residual gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; however the description adds action-to-parameter routing (request uses email, accept/decline/remove use id from list_friends' returned contact state), which helps an agent bind values to the correct field for the chosen enum branch. That mapping is a genuine usability gain beyond the per-field schema text.

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?

Names the specific resource (contact relationship / friendship invitation) and enumerates the four concrete actions with their operand types, so an agent knows exactly what operation the tool performs. It also distinguishes itself from list_friends, invite_collaborator, and view_manage_friend in the same breath.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: list_friends for inspection without mutation, invite_collaborator for an explicitly approved session, view_manage_friend as the app-panel adapter. The critical negative case (friendship grants no Blender execution or computer access) is stated outright, which is exactly the kind of alternative-routing guidance that prevents wrong-tool selection.

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?