Blender Bridge

Save Blender scene copy

save_blend_file

Destructive

Save a .blend copy of the current complete scene to the requested project destination while preserving the open project and its unsaved state. The destination options choose the project folder and filename; operation_name supplies the user-facing history title. Replacing an existing output requires explicit overwrite authorization. Returns copy/output status, possibly a running request_id for work still in progress. Use get_project_file to retrieve an existing result or export_model for an interchange format instead of a Blender scene file.

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": {
      "operation_name": "<operation_name>"
    },
    "name": "save_blend_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filename`	No	Output filename for this result; choose a name appropriate to the requested format.
`overwrite`	No	True only for a user-authorized replacement of an existing file.
`project_name`	No	Project name used to organize this output in the receiving Desktop workspace.
`project_path`	No	Absolute project folder only when the user explicitly supplied this external destination. Otherwise use Desktop’s configured workspace.
`operation_name`	Yes	Short, concrete history title in the user's language describing the requested operation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / filename / description

Added value: +"Output filename for this result; choose a name appropriate to the requested format."

addedInput schema / properties / operation_name / description

Added value: +"Short, concrete history title in the user's language describing the requested operation."

addedInput schema / properties / project_name / description

Added value: +"Project name used to organize this output in the receiving Desktop workspace."

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds real context: the save preserves the live project and unsaved state, replacement requires explicit overwrite authorization, and the result may be async with a request_id for in-progress work. That async and authorization disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior structured fields can't convey.

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 and its key side-effect, then parameters, then return shape, then alternatives. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the parameter sentence is the least essential since the schema already documents those fields.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return (copy/output status, possible request_id). Combined with the overwrite precondition and the alternatives routing, an agent has everything needed to call this destructive, potentially async tool correctly.

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 is 3, but the description adds role-level meaning: destination options select project folder plus filename, and operation_name is the user-facing history title (in the user's language). It doesn't elaborate on when project_path vs project_name should each be used beyond the schema's own text, so not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: saving a .blend copy of the current complete scene, and scopes it with the key nuance that the open project and its unsaved state are preserved. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_project_file and export_model, so an agent can pick it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: 'Use get_project_file to retrieve an existing result or export_model for an interchange format instead of a Blender scene file.' It also states the precondition for overwriting (explicit user authorization), which is a genuine when/when-not rule.

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?