Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Blender MCP Ultra

Blender MCP Ultra

by 3bdull4h2008
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bake_physics

Bake physics simulations for Blender objects to precompute motion and ensure consistent results across chosen frames.

Instructions

Bake physics simulation for an object.

Args: object_name: Object with physics. frame_start: First frame to bake. frame_end: Last frame to bake.

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": {
      "object_name": "<object_name>"
    },
    "name": "bake_physics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
frame_endNo
frame_startNo
object_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'Bake physics simulation,' without mentioning that baking is often destructive (replaces dynamic simulation with keyframes), may take time, or requires the object to have an active physics simulation. The param description hints at 'Object with physics' but does not elaborate on failure behavior.

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?

A single sentence states the purpose, followed by a clean list of parameters. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple bake operation, the description covers the essential parameters but omits behavioral details such as irreversibility, time cost, and required preconditions (object must have physics). Given no annotations or output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides no property descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description explains all three parameters clearly: object_name, frame_start, and frame_end. Each has a concise meaning that adds value beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 ('bake') and resource ('physics simulation for an object'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_physics or add_rigid_body, which handle different aspects of physics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., object must already have physics) or contrast with similar operations like add_rigid_body or delete_physics. The agent must infer usage context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools