Change an object's type to MESH, CURVE, or others. Specify the object name and target type to convert it, enabling geometry reshapes for modeling workflows.
Convert an object to a different type (e.g., curve to mesh).
Args: name: Object name. target_type: Target type (MESH, CURVE, SURFACE, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| target_type | No | MESH |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states that conversion happens but does not say whether the original object is modified or replaced, whether data is preserved, what limitations apply, or what happens on failure. For a mutation-style tool this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. The Args block is compact and directly repeats parameter names in a scannable way. It earns a high score for conciseness, though the Args block adds only marginal value over the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand the full consequences of calling it. It explains what the tool does and what the parameters are, but omits behavioral context such as success/failure behavior, whether the object is replaced, and supported type restrictions. A simple tool should still disclose these basics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It provides minimal meaning for both parameters—'Object name' and 'Target type (MESH, CURVE, SURFACE, etc.)'—but it does not enumerate supported target types, clarify case sensitivity, or explain what values are valid beyond loose examples. It adds only slightly more than the property names and default already provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool converts an object to a different type and gives a concrete example (curve to mesh) plus example target types (MESH, CURVE, SURFACE). It is specific enough to distinguish the generic operation from the more targeted sibling convert_curve_to_mesh, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as convert_curve_to_mesh or other conversion-related tools. The description implies generic conversion use, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or which sibling should be preferred for specific conversions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.