Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Blender Bridge

by com.blenderbridge
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Panel: restore scene checkpoint

view_restore
Destructive

App-only adapter for the panel's Restore and Undo restore buttons, used after the user chooses a history entry. Replaces the current scene with a checkpoint and can discard subsequent manual or AI edits. Supply checkpoint_id or before_request_id from the history records. undo_restore also requires expected_current_checkpoint_id to reject a changed current scene. Returns updated history and the restore result; cross-file restoration is refused. Use view_history to read the panel history, or scene_checkpoints for model-driven history actions.

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": "view_restore"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesRestore the selected history target, or return from a previous restore with a current-checkpoint guard.
request_idNoOptional identifier for this restore request.
checkpoint_idNoCheckpoint identifier from history; supply this or before_request_id.
before_request_idNoRestore the checkpoint before this recorded operation; alternative to checkpoint_id.
expected_current_checkpoint_idNoCurrent checkpoint identifier expected by the panel; required for undo_restore.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Added value: +"Restore the selected history target, or return from a previous restore with a current-checkpoint guard."
    • addedInput schema / properties / before_request_id / description
      Added value: +"Restore the checkpoint before this recorded operation; alternative to checkpoint_id."
    • addedInput schema / properties / checkpoint_id / description
      Added value: +"Checkpoint identifier from history; supply this or before_request_id."
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_current_checkpoint_id / description
      Added value: +"Current checkpoint identifier expected by the panel; required for undo_restore."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id / description
      Added value: +"Optional identifier for this restore request."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: it discards subsequent manual or AI edits, refuses cross-file restoration, and undo_restore rejects a changed current scene via the expected_checkpoint guard. This is exactly the beyond-annotations context that prevents misuse.

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?

Purpose and the destructive consequence are front-loaded, then parameter guidance, then siblings, with no redundant sentences. Dense but every sentence carries new information.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, destructive impact, parameter dependencies, refusal behavior, and return shape ('updated history and the restore result'). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the either/or dependency between checkpoint_id and before_request_id and the conditional requirement of expected_current_checkpoint_id for undo_restore. That conditional interplay goes beyond the flat per-parameter schema descriptions.

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 (replace the scene with a checkpoint), the resource (scene checkpoint), and explicitly positions itself against siblings scene_checkpoints and view_history. An agent can distinguish its role without opening any schema.

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 concrete context ('used after the user chooses a history entry') and names the alternatives with their selection conditions ('view_history to read panel history, or scene_checkpoints for model-driven history actions'). Explicit when-to-use coverage.

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

All Blender Bridge toolsInspect
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