R3

Download one of your Blender models as a .blend

r3_blender_download

Read-only

Get a .blend of one of the user's OWN Blender models (from r3_blender_list) to open in Blender: the current version, or the version fileId names. Answers a one-time download ticket (5 minutes) and the download endpoint (URL, method, Authorization header); the response body is the file. When the current version is the copy R3 made by applying modifiers, the answer says so and names the original upload, with its modifiers intact, to download instead. Another user's model cannot be downloaded.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fileId`	No	A version's sha256 (from this tool's answer, e.g. the original of an applied copy). Leave out for the current version.
`blenderModelId`	Yes	The Blender model, from r3_blender_list (one of the user's own).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`body`	Yes
`bytes`	Yes
`answer`	Yes	This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.
`fileId`	Yes
`method`	Yes
`ticket`	Yes
`headers`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`fileName`	Yes
`maxBytes`	Yes
`expiresAt`	Yes
`environment`	Yes
`blenderModelId`	Yes
`originalFileId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / body
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / curl

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / headers

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "Authorization": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "Authorization"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "ticket",
-  "url",
-  "method",
-  "curl",
-  "expiresAt",
-  "maxBytes",
-  "environment",
-  "blenderModelId",
-  "fileName",
-  "fileId",
-  "version",
-  "bytes",
-  "originalFileId",
-  "answer"
-]New value: +[
+  "ticket",
+  "url",
+  "method",
+  "headers",
+  "body",
+  "expiresAt",
+  "maxBytes",
+  "environment",
+  "blenderModelId",
+  "fileName",
+  "fileId",
+  "version",
+  "bytes",
+  "originalFileId",
+  "answer"
+]

AddedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new operational detail beyond them: a one-time download ticket valid for 5 minutes, the returned endpoint (URL, method, Authorization header), and that the response body is the file itself. It also discloses the modifier-copy edge case and how to recover the original.

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?

The purpose and ownership constraint are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (version selection, ticket mechanics, modifier nuance). It is somewhat dense with nested clauses, but nothing is filler.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs: ownership scope, version selection, the ephemeral ticket and auth requirements, and the modifier-copy gotcha. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description still usefully describes the answer shape.

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; the description adds the conceptual distinction that fileId selects a specific version (or the original of an applied copy) while omitting it yields the current version. This meaningfully reinforces how the two parameters interact, though the schema already documents the sha256 format.

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 precise verb+resource: getting a .blend file of the user's OWN Blender model, selectable by current version or version fileId. It names r3_blender_list as the source of model IDs and distinguishes itself from sibling write tools (r3_blender_upload, r3_blender_import) by scoping to download only.

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 clear context (to open in Blender, IDs come from r3_blender_list) and a real exclusion: another user's model cannot be downloaded. It even routes the agent to download the original upload instead when the current version is an applied-modifier copy. It stops short of naming a distinct alternative tool or a when-not-to-use scenario beyond the ownership limit.

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

All R3 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?